Clandestinity (in Canon Law)

Strictly speaking, clandestinity signifies a matrimonial impediment introduced by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. i) to invalidate marriages contracted at variance with the exigencies of the decree "Tametsi", commonly so called because the first word of the Latin text is tametsi. The decree reads: "Those who attempt to contract matrimony otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest or of another priest with leave of the parish priest or of the ordinary, and before two or three witnesses, the Holy Synod renders altogether incapable of such a contract, and declares such contracts null and void." The Council of Trent did not transmit any historical record of this question. While upholding the validity of clandestine marriages "as long as the Church does not annul them", the council asserts that "for weighty reasons the holy Church of God always abhorred and prohibited them" (Sess. XXIV, De reformatione matrimonii). That this sentence strikes the keynote of unending antipathy on the part of the Church towards clandestine marriages can be gathered by a brief review of the historical attitude of the Church. In the fifth chapter of his Epistle to Polycarp, St. Ignatius intimates how men and women about to marry should enter wedlock with the bishop's consent, so that their marriage may be in the Lord (Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, 100). Tertullian writes that matrimonial unions contracted without the intervention of ecclesiastical authority are liable to be judged tantamount to fornication and adultery (De pudicitiâ, iv, in Migne, P. L., II, 987). In another passage he extols the happiness of that union which is cemented by the Church, confirmed by oblation, sealed with blessing, which angels proclaim, and which the Father in heaven ratifies (Ad uxorem, in Migne, P. L., II, 9). The thirteenth canon of the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage requires parties contracting marriage to be presented to a priest of the Church by their parents or bridal attendants in order to receive the blessing of the Church (Hefele, History of the Councils, II, 412). Whatever may be the age of this canon, the custom therein enjoined had previously won the approval of St. Ambrose, who earnestly sought to have all marriages sanctified by the priestly pall and benediction (Epistle xix to Vigilius, in Migne, P. L., XVI, 984). The Code of Justinian bears evidence to the influence which this imperial legislator wielded to secure the public celebration of marriage according to some legitimate form ("Novellæ", or New Constitutions, xxii, lxiv, cxvii).

In the ninth century the Emperor Basil gave the force of written law to a widely observed custom of having a priest assist at marriages to bless and crown the married parties. Not long after, Leo the Philosopher declared that marriages celebrated without a priest's blessing were worthless. The replies of Pope Nicholas I (863) to the Bulgarians, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, as well as the "Decretum" of Burchard and that of Gratian embody ample evidence to prove that, during the ninth century and thereafter, the public celebration of nuptials was prescribed and clandestine marriage condemned. Though Gratian alleges forged decretals to show the prohibition of clandestine marriages, it must be granted that he faithfully records the usage of his age concerning the validity of such marriages. Though Alexander III (1159-1181) maintained the validity of clandestine marriage when no other impediment intervened, he obliged parties contracting such marriages to undergo penance, and suspended for three years any priest assisting thereat. (Wernz, Jus Decretalium, IV, title III, no. 516.) Another step in advance was made when Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), inaugurated the proclamation of the banns.

Finally, a turning-point in the history of this question was reached when the Council of Trent enacted the "Tametsi" as a measure destined to check abuses and to safeguard the sacredness of the marriage contract. The principal elements of this decree pertained to the sentence of nullification affecting marriages of Christians failing to enter wedlock in the presence of the parish priest or his legitimate representative and in that of two or more witnesses; to the ways and means of publishing the decree; and to the penalty awaiting transgressors thereof. A succinct comment concerning these points will elucidate the purport of the decree. In the first place, to attain the desired end more effectually, the Council of Trent decreed a singular method of promulgation. It ordered that the decree should be published in every parish, and that it should take effect only after thirty days from its publication. When a parish comprised many churches, publication in the parochial church was sufficient. The term "parochial church" comprehends missions attended by priests on whom the faithful depend for the ministrations of religion (Cong. of the Inquisition, 14 November, 1883). Publication of the decree in churches situated in such missions had the force of law. A new publication was not necessary when a newly-organized parish results from the dismemberment of a parish wherein the law already obtained. On the contrary, if a parish subject to the law should be united to one hitherto exempt, the former would remain bound by the law and the latter retain its immunity (Cong. of Inquis., 14 Dec., 1859).

For obvious reasons, the vernacular should be used in publishing the decree. The use of Latin would, according to the principles of canon law, render the act illicit but not invalid (Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Matrimonio, II, v, 119). The publication would be worthless unless the decree were made known to the faithful as a Tridentine law or as an ordinance emanating from the Holy See. While one publication sufficed to induce obligation, the council suggested repeated publication during the first year of tenure. This publication might be made whenever a congregation assembled in church. The decree was sometimes published in a parish to bind parishioners speaking one language to the exclusion of those using a different tongue. Sometimes the law was intended to oblige none but Catholics residing within the parish lines. In a parish entirely Catholic, wherein heretics settled after the law was duly promulgated, the obligation applied to all, Catholics and heretics. In such cases the "Tametsi" declared null heretical marriages or clandestine mixed marriages (Pius VIII, 26 March, 1830). In a non-Catholic district containing only a few Catholic parishes, the marriage of a Protestant with another Protestant, or the clandestine marriage of a Protestant with a Catholic, would be valid although the number of Catholics in the neighbourhood should so increase as to warrant the actual publication of the decree (Pius VII to Napoleon I, 27 June, 1805; Cong. of Inquisition, 24 November and 29 November, 1852). Finally, populations once largely Catholic in whose parishes the decree was published might be supplanted by non-Catholics. Though canonists are not unanimous in their verdict regarding the application of the law in such conditions, Gasparri, among others, holds that in such cases the law would not bind non-Catholics. For this was, says he, the case when Benedict XIV issued his Declaration for Holland (Gasparri, op. cit., II, v, 202).

After these general considerations concerning the promulgation of this decree, it may not be amiss to note where the decree was actually published. In the United States this law was published in the province of New Orleans; in the province of San Francisco, together with Utah, except that part bordering the Colorado River; in the province of Santa Fé, except the northern part of Colorado; in the Diocese of Indianapolis; in St. Louis, St. Genevieve, St. Charles (Missouri), St. Ferdinand, Kaskaskia, French Village, and Prairie du Rocher. In Europe, the decree was published in Italy and adjacent islands; in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine; in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, German Empire (Pius X, 18 January, 1906), Poland, Belgium, Rotterdam, Geneva (Zitelli, Apparatus Juris Eccles., I, 428), and Malta (Cong. Inquis., 18 March, 1884). It is no easy matter to give accurate specifications for regions outside Europe and the United States (Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, II, 563). The decree was not published in England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Zitelli, op. cit., I, 430). In some localities circumstances paved the way towards a partial promulgation of the decree (Zitelli, op. cit., I, 437). Furthermore, although the decree might have been promulgated, the action of legitimate authority could limit its binding force. Thus Benedict XIV terminated the controversy concerning the marriages of heretics in Holland. The fact that many Dutch Catholics had abjured their faith paved the way for questioning the application of the decree already promulgated in that country. To solve this difficulty Benedict XIV ruled that henceforth heretical or mixed marriages, clandestinely contracted, would be valid, provided no other impediment intervened. This declaration was subsequently extended to other localities in which the Tridentine decree was not promulgated until heretics had organized their own congregations in such places. In this way the declaration of Benedict XIV found application in Canada, Trinidad, the dioceses of the United States with the exception of the San Francisco province, the German Empire, Belgium, Russian Poland, the Malabar Coast, the Coromandel Coast, Constantinople and suburbs, Diocese of Warsaw, Archdiocese of Bombay, Diocese of Culm, Duchy of Cleves, Pondicherry, Maastricht, and the suburb of St. Peter near Maastricht.

It may be well to note here the way in which the term heretic is to be understood in this declaration. It comprehended individuals baptized in the Catholic Church, but who subsequently adopted the tenets of some sect: Catholics who had reached the years of discretion and had been alienated from their Faith by the influence of Protestants whose religion they thereafter professed; apostates who allied themselves with some sect; heretics professing no religion whatever (Gasparri, op. cit., II, v, 208). Whenever the requirements of this decree were reduced to practice owing to legitimate usage, no further promulgation was necessary to render the measure effective (Cong. of Holy Office, 1 May, 1887). The decree once published in any parish, could be set aside by revocation on the part of the Holy See. It could also be abrogated by contrary usage or desuetude. Thus, Pius VII, in a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz, 8 October, 1803, decided that marriages contracted before a Protestant minister are valid where the Tridentine decree has lapsed into desuetude. In like manner, the Congregation of the Holy Office decided that the "Tametsi" had passed into desuetude in Japan (11 March, 1806). At the same time the Holy See repeatedly declared that the "Tametsi" did not lose its binding force in a given place because heretics residing there declined to observe it, no matter how long they refused to abide by its requirements (Cong. of Holy Office, 6 July, 1892).

Regarding the subjects of this law, it is necessary to note that the decree invalidating clandestine marriages was both local and personal (Cong. of Holy. Office, 14 December, 1859). In its local application the law comprehended all who contracted marriage in any place where the decree had been duly promulgated, whether they were residents, aliens, travellers, transients, or persons having no fixed abode, because those who come from an exempt territory are obliged to recognize and observe universal laws. Moreover, since jurists claim that territory governs contracts, it follows that residents, aliens, travellers, transients, and those without fixed abode, must observe laws circumscribing contracts in the place where such contracts are made. A decision of the Holy Office, dated 25 January, 1900, gave new weight to this accepted axiom of canonists. On account of the personal element embodied in this decree, the obligation of observing it applied to those thereunto subjected where-ever they might chance to be. For this reason parties having a domicile or quasi-domicile in a district where the law held remained liable to its obligation as often as they betook themselves to an exempt territory to evade the law. Those whose sole or whose chief object in such case was to enter wedlock, were considered guilty of evading the law. However, where one of the contracting parties had acquired a domicile or quasi-domicile in an exempt territory, their marriage, if contracted there, would be valid because the privilege enjoyed by one was here communicable to the other (Benedict XIV, De Synodo, VI, vi).

The better to complete this explanation, a word concerning the terms domicile and quasi-domicile is necessary. An ecclesiastical domicile involves two elements, namely, residence in a particular parish and an intention of abiding there for the greater part of a year. This intention is gauged by external acts whose manifestation marks the actual acquisition of a domicile which is retained thereafter notwithstanding protracted absence, provided the intention of returning perseveres. In like manner residence in a parish and an intention of dwelling there during a considerable portion of the year denote the elements giving consistency to a quasi-domicile. Hence, an individual may be domiciled in one parish and acquire a quasi-domicile in another. Six months' sojourn in the same parish entitled parties to invite the pastor of that parish to assist at their nuptials. Nevertheless, in answer to a petition made by the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the Holy See (22 May, 1886) granted for the United States to parties moving from a parish where the "Tametsi" obtained to another parish and residing there for a full month, the privilege of a quasi-domicile so far as the matrimonial contract was concerned. Nor would the privilege be forfeited in case the contracting parties should pass thirty days in such a place in order to enter wedlock there (Putzer, Commentarium in Facultates Apostolicas, no. 49). Although the decree involved a personal element, clandestine marriages were valid as often as the observance of the law was physically or morally impossible, provided such impossibility was general and continued for a month (Cong. of Inquis., 1 July, 1863; 14 November, 1883). Parties whose circumstances led them to profit by this interpretation of the law were obliged to seek the nuptial blessing at their earliest convenience, and to see that their marriage was entered in the proper register (Cong. of Inquis., 14 November, 1883).

To the pastor of either contracting party belonged the right of officiating at their nuptials. Vicars appointed to exercise the functions of pastor with the fullness of the pastoral ministry enjoyed the same right so long as they held office (Cong. of Inquis., 7 Sept., 1898). The Roman pontiff alone could counteract the exercise of this pastoral prerogative. The presence of the pastor in the capacity of witness satisfied the requirements of the Tridentine decree even though he was not formally invited for that purpose (Cong. of Inquis., 17 Nov., 1835). The consent of those about to marry had to be signified in the presence of the pastor and other witnesses required by the decree. Since the sovereign pontiff enjoys universal jurisdiction in the Church, he could validly assist at any marriage whatever. Cardinals had no longer the right of assisting at marriages in their titular churches. Legates of the Holy See were qualified to assist at marriages contracted within the confines of their legation. Bishops might minister at marriages in any portion of their respective dioceses. According to Gasparri (op. cit., II, v, 154), an archbishop might exercise this right for the subjects of his suffragans provided he visited their dioceses according to the requirements of canon law. To a vicar-general was accorded the right of officiating at any marriage in the diocese. Those in whom this right was vested were at liberty to delegate another priest to act in their stead. Such delegation might be special or general. As often as the delegation was special, little danger of invalidity was feared. On the contrary, when general jurisdiction is transmitted to delegates, the Holy See questions, not so much validity, as legitimacy of action. Hence, the Congregation of the Council (20 July, 1889) reproved the conduct of those parish priests who habitually interchanged the faculty of assisting at the marriages of their respective subjects, because such methods tended to render the "Tametsi" ineffectual so far as the presence of the parish priest is concerned. At the same time this Congregation (18 March, 1893) and the Congregation of the Inquisition (9 November, 1898) approved general delegation within judicious limits. Notification of his commission to assist at nuptials had to be given directly to the delegate, either by the individual authorizing him to act or by a messenger specially chosen for this purpose (Sanchez, De Matrimonio, disp. xxvi, no. 8). The commission might be granted orally or in writing. No priest would be justified in presuming permission to assist at marriages. So strict was this rule that a pastor had no power to ratify marriages whose invalidity was superinduced in this way. In like manner, the Congregation of the Inquisition (7 September, 1898) decided that the ordinary faculties granted by bishops to priests, empowering them to administer the sacraments, did not qualify them to assist at marriages. Sanchez (op. cit., disp. xxxv, no. 20) claims that tacit notification would be sufficient to justify a priest to assist at nuptials.

Besides the parish priest, at least two witnesses were required for the validity of a marriage contract. The use of reason and the possibility of actually testifying render any individual capable of exercising this particular function (Benedict XIV,De Synodo, xxiii, no. 6). The simultaneous presence of the pastor and witnesses was necessary to comply with the requirements of the "Tametsi" (Sanchez, op. cit., disp. xli, no. 3). Parish priests or others officiating at marriages without the necessary number of witnesses, or witnesses assisting without the pastor, rendered themselves, together with the contracting parties, liable to severe punishment at the hands of the bishop. Moreover, a parish priest, or any other priest, whether regular or secular, assisting without the pastor's consent at nuptials of parties belonging to his parish was suspended from priestly functions until absolved by the bishop of the pastor whose rights had been disregarded.

NEW LEGISLATION ON CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE

Through the decree "Ne Temere," issued 2 August, 1907, by the Congregation of the Council, in conjunction with the pontifical commission for the new canonical code, important modifications have been made regarding the form of betrothal and of marriage. This decree was issued to render easier for the universal Church the substantial form of matrimony, to prevent more efficiently the too numerous, hasty, and clandestine marriages, and to make it easier for ecclesiastical courts to decide as to the existence or non-existence of a previous engagement to marry (see ESPOUSALS). With the exception in regard to Germany noted below, this legislation went into effect at Easter (19 April), 1908, and is thenceforth binding on all Catholics throughout the world, any contrary law or custom being totally abolished. According to this decree, marriages of Catholics are henceforth null unless celebrated before a duly qualified priest (or the bishop of the diocese) and at least two witnesses. The same is true of marriages in which either of the parties is or has been a Catholic. The law, however, does not bind those who are not and never have been Catholics. Priests charged with the care of souls in the territory where a marriage is contracted, or any approved priest whom one charged with the care of souls or whom the bishop of the diocese delegates, are qualified to assist at nuptials. Marriages contracted in a parish, district, or diocese, other than the one to which the contracting parties belong, are valid so long as the pastor of the place or his delegate assists at such marriages. However, priests are forbidden to assist at such marriages unless one of two conditions is verified. Either, one of the parties must have resided a month in the territory where the marriage occurs, or else, one of the parties must have obtained the permission of the priest or bishop under whose jurisdiction such a party resides. In cases of serious necessity such permission is not required.

The following conditions are enjoined by the decree" Ne Temere", not for the validity of the marriages of Catholics, but to bring them into complete conformity with the demands of right order. Marriages ought to be celebrated in the parish of the bride. If the contracting parties wish to marry elsewhere, they must ask the pastor of the place, or some priest authorized by him or by the bishop, to assist at the marriage, and one of the parties must have resided there for a month. When parties find this procedure inconvenient, one of them must obtain permission from his or her parish priest or bishop to contract marriage elsewhere. In such cases the parties will be obliged to give the necessary assurance regarding their freedom to marry, and to comply with the usual conditions for receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony. When parties have no fixed abode and are travelling throughout the country, they can enter wedlock only before a priest authorized by the bishop to assist at their marriage.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared (11 February, 1908) that the dispensations granted in the Bull "Provida" of 18 January, 1906, for Germany will still remain in force. According to this Bull, while Catholic marriages in Germany were made subject to the decree "Tametsi", mixed marriages and those of Protestants among themselves were exempted. (See MARRIAGE; PARISH PRIEST; DOMICILE.)

Canones et Decreta Sacrosancti Œcumenici Concilii Tridentini (Rome, 1893); Decretum, "Ne Temere" (2 August, 1907); GASPARRI, Tractatus Canonicus de Matrimonio (Paris, 1904); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1904), IV; OJETTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et Juris Pontificii (Prato, 1904); ZITELLI, Apparatus Juris Ecclesiastici (Rome, 1903); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1887), I; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (London, 1904); FEIJE, De imped. et disp. matrim. (4th ed., Louvain, 1893); JODER, Formulaire matrimonial (4th ed., Paris, 1897); BASSIBEY, De la clandestinité dans le mariage (Paris, 1903); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris eccl. (Freiburg, 1903) 443-51; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). For a commentary on the decree "Ne Temere," see McNICHOLAS in Amer. Ecclesiastical Review (Philadelphia, February, 1908); O'NEILL, ibid. (April, 1908), and CRONIN, The New Matrimonial Legislation (Rome, 1908).

J. D. O'NEILL.

St. Clare of Assisi

Cofoundress of the Order of Poor Ladies, or Clares, and first Abbess of San Damiano; born at Assisi, 16 July, 1194; died there 11 August, 1253. She was the eldest daughter of Favorino Scifi, Count of Sasso-Rosso, the wealthy representative of an ancient Roman family, who owned a large palace in Assisi and a castle on the slope of Mount Subasio. Such at least is the traditional account. Her mother, Bl. Ortolana, belonged to the noble family of Fiumi and was conspicuous for her zeal and piety. From her earliest years Clare seems to have been endowed with the rarest virtues. As a child she was most devoted to prayer and to practices of mortification, and as she passed into girlhood her distaste for the world and her yearning for a more spiritual life increased. She was eighteen years of age when St. Francis came to preach the Lenten course in the church of San Giorgio at Assisi. The inspired words of the Poverello kindled a flame in the heart of Clare; she sought him out secretly and begged him to help her that she too might live "after the manner of the holy Gospel". St. Francis, who at once recognized in Clare one of those chosen souls destined by God for great things, and who also, doubtless, foresaw that many would follow her example, promised to assist her. On Palm Sunday Clare, arrayed in all her finery, attended high Mass at the cathedral, but when the others pressed forward to the altar-rail to receive a branch of palm, she remained in her place as if rapt in a dream. All eyes were upon the young girl as the bishop descended from the sanctuary and placed the palm in her hand. That was the last time the world beheld Clare. On the night of the same day she secretly left her father's house, by St. Francis's advice and, accompanied by her aunt Bianca and another companion, proceeded to the humble chapel of the Porziuncula, where St. Francis and his disciples met her with lights in their hands. Clare then laid aside her rich dress, and St. Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in a rough tunic and a thick veil, and in this way the young heroine vowed herself to the service of Jesus Christ. This was 20 March, 1212.

Clare was placed by St. Francis provisionally with the Benedictine nuns of San Paolo, near Bastia, but her father, who had expected her to make a splendid marriage, and who was furious at her secret flight, on discovering her retreat, did his utmost to dissuade Clare from her heroic proposals, and even tried to drag her home by force. But Clare held her own with a firmness above her years, and Count Favorino was finally obliged to leave her in peace. A few days later St. Francis, in order to secure Clare the greater solitude she desired, transferred her to Sant' Angelo in Panzo, another monastery of the Benedictine nuns on one of the flanks of Subasio. Here some sixteen days after her own flight, Clare was joined by her younger sister Agnes, whom she was instrumental in delivering from the persecution of their infuriated relatives. (See AGNES, SAINT, OF ASSISI.) Clare and her sister remained with the nuns at Sant' Angelo until they and the other fugitives from the world who had followed them were established by St. Francis in a rude dwelling adjoining the poor chapel of San Damiano, situated outside the town which he had to a great extent rebuilt with his own hands, and which he now obtained from the Benedictines as a permanent abode for his spiritual daughters. Thus was founded the first community of the Order of Poor Ladies, or of Poor Clares, as this second order of St. Francis came to be called.

The history of the Poor Clares will be dealt with in a separate article. Here it suffices to note that we may distinguish, during the lifetime of St. Clare, three stages in the complicated early history of the new order. In the beginning St. Clare and her companions had no written rule to follow beyond a very short formula vitae given them by St. Francis, and which may be found among his works. Some years later, apparently in 1219, during St. Francis's absence in the East, Cardinal Ugolino, then protector of the order, afterwards Gregory IX, drew up a written rule for the Clares at Monticelli, taking as a basis the Rule of St. Benedict, retaining the fundamental points of the latter and adding some special constitutions. This new rule, which, in effect if not in intention, took away from the Clares the Franciscan character of absolute poverty so dear to the heart of St. Francis and made them for all practical purposes a congregation of Benedictines, was approved by Honorius III (Bull, "Sacrosancta", 9 Dec., 1219). When Clare found that the new rule, though strict enough in other respects, allowed the holding of property in common, she courageously and successfully resisted the innovations of Ugolino as being entirely opposed to the intentions of St. Francis. The latter had forbidden the Poor Ladies, just as he had forbidden his friars to possess any worldly goods even in common. Owning nothing, they were to depend entirety upon what the Friars Minor could beg for them. This complete renunciation of all property was however regarded by Ugolino as unpractical for cloistered women. When, therefore, in 1228, he came to Assisi for the canonization of St. Francis (having meanwhile ascended the pontifical throne as Gregory IX), he visited St. Clare at San Damiano and pressed her to so far deviate from the practice of poverty which had up to this time obtained at San Damiano, as to accept some provision for the unforeseen wants of the community. But Clare firmly refused. Gregory, thinking that her refusal might be due to fear of violating the vow of strict poverty she had taken, offered to absolve her from it. "Holy Father, I crave for absolution from my sins", replied Clare, "but I desire not to be absolved from the obligation of following Jesus Christ".

The heroic unworldliness of Clare filled the pope with admiration, as his letters to her, still extant, bear eloquent witness, and he so far gave way to her views as to grant her on 17 September, 1228, the celebrated Privilegium Paupertatis which some regard in the light of a corrective of the Rule of 1219. The original autograph copy of this unique "privilege"--the first one of its kind ever sought for, or ever issued by the Holy See--is preserved in the archive at Santa Chiara in Assisi. The text is as follows: "Gregory Bishop Servant of the Servants of God. To our beloved daughters in Christ Clare and the other handmaids of Christ dwelling together at the Church of San Damiano in the Diocese of Assisi. Health and Apostolic benediction. It is evident that the desire of consecrating yourselves to God alone has led you to abandon every wish for temporal things. Wherefore, after having sold all your goods and having distributed them among the poor, you propose to have absolutely no possessions, in order to follow in all things the example of Him Who became poor and Who is the way, the truth, and the life. Neither does the want of necessary things deter you from such a proposal, for the left arm of your Celestial Spouse is beneath your head to sustain the infirmity of your body, which, according to the order of charity, you have subjected to the law of the spirit. Finally, He who feeds the birds of the air and who gives the lilies of the field their raiment and their nourishment, will not leave you in want of clothing or of food until He shall come Himself to minister to you in eternity when, namely, the right hand of His consolations shall embrace you in the plenitude of the Beatific Vision. Since, therefore, you have asked for it, we confirm by Apostolic favour your resolution of the loftiest poverty and by the authority of these present letters grant that you may not be constrained by anyone to receive possessions. To no one, therefore, be it allowed to infringe upon this page of our concession or to oppose it with rash temerity. But if anyone shall presume to attempt this, be it known to him that he shall incur the wrath of Almighty God and his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Perugia on the fifteenth of the Kalends of October in the second year of our Pontificate."

That St. Clare may have solicited a "privilege" similar to the foregoing at an earlier date and obtained it vivâ voce, is not improbable. Certain it is that after the death of Gregory IX Clare had once more to contend for the principle of absolute poverty prescribed by St. Francis, for Innocent IV would fain have given the Clares a new and mitigated rule, and the firmness with which she held to her way won over the pope. Finally, two days before her death, Innocent, no doubt at the reiterated request of the dying abbess, solemnly confirmed the definitive Rule of the Clares (Bull, "Solet Annuere", 9 August, 1253), and thus secured to them the precious treasure of poverty which Clare, in imitation of St. Francis, had taken for her portion from the beginning of her conversion. The author of this latter rule, which is largely an adaptation mutatis mutandis, of the rule which St. Francis composed for the Friars Minor in 1223, seems to have been Cardinal Rainaldo, Bishop of Ostia, and protector of the order, afterwards Alexander IV, though it is most likely that St. Clare herself had a hand in its compilation. Be this as it may, it can no longer be maintained that St. Francis was in any sense the author of this formal Rule of the Clares; he only gave to St. Clare and her companions at the outset of their religious life the brief formula vivendi already mentioned.

St. Clare, who in 1215 had, much against her will been made superior at San Damiano by St. Francis, continued to rule there as abbess until her death, in 1253, nearly forty years later. There is no good reason to believe that she ever once went beyond the boundaries of San Damiano during all that time. It need not, therefore, be wondered at if so comparatively few details of St. Clare's life in the cloister "hidden with Christ in God", have come down to us. We know that she became a living copy of the poverty, the humility, and the mortification of St. Francis; that she had a special devotion to the Holy Eucharist, and that in order to increase her love for Christ crucified she learned by heart the Office of the Passion composed by St. Francis, and that during the time that remained to her after her devotional exercises she engaged in manual labour. Needless to add, that under St. Clare's guidance the community of San Damiano became the sanctuary of every virtue, a very nursery of saints. Clare had the consolation not only of seeing her younger sister Beatrix, her mother Ortolana, and her faithful aunt Bianca follow Agnes into the order, but also of witnessing the foundation of monasteries of Clares far and wide throughout Europe. It would be difficult, moreover, to estimate how much the silent influence of the gentle abbess did towards guiding the women of medieval Italy to higher aims. In particular, Clare threw around poverty that irresistible charm which only women can communicate to religious or civic heroism, and she became a most efficacious coadjutrix of St. Francis in promoting that spirit of unworldliness which in the counsels of God, "was to bring about a restoration of discipline in the Church and of morals and civilization in the peoples of Western Europe". Not the least important part of Clare's work was the aid and encouragement she gave St. Francis. It was to her he turned when in doubt, and it was she who urged him to continue his mission to the people at a time when he thought his vocation lay rather in a life of contemplation. When in an attack of blindness and illness, St. Francis came for the last time to visit San Damiano, Clare erected a little wattle hut for him in an olive grove close to the monastery, and it was here that he composed his glorious "Canticle of the Sun". After St. Francis's death the procession which accompanied his remains from the Porziuncula to the town stopped on the way at San Damiano in order that Clare and her daughters might venerate the pierced hands and feet of him who had formed them to the love of Christ crucified--a pathetic scene which Giotto has commemorated in one of his loveliest frescoes. So far, however, as Clare was concerned, St. Francis was always living, and nothing is, perhaps, more striking in her after-life than her unswerving loyalty to the ideals of the Poverello, and the jealous care with which she clung to his rule and teaching.

When, in 1234, the army of Frederick II was devastating the valley of Spoleto, the soldiers, preparatory to an assault upon Assisi, scaled the walls of San Damiano by night, spreading terror among the community. Clare, calmly rising from her sick bed, and taking the ciborium from the little chapel adjoining her cell, proceeded to face the invaders at an open window against which they had already placed a ladder. It is related that, as she raised the Blessed Sacrament on high, the soldiers who were about to enter the monastery fell backward as if dazzled, and the others who were ready to follow them took flight. It is with reference to this incident that St. Clare is generally represented in art bearing a ciborium.

When, some time later, a larger force returned to storm Assisi, headed by the General Vitale di Aversa who had not been present at the first attack, Clare, gathering her daughters about her, knelt with them in earnest prayer that the town might be spared. Presently a furious storm arose, scattering the tents of the soldiers in every direction, and causing such a panic that they again took refuge in flight. The gratitude of the Assisians, who with one accord attributed their deliverance to Clare's intercession, increased their love for the "Seraphic Mother". Clare had long been enshrined in the hearts of the people, and their veneration became more apparent as, wasted by illness and austerities, she drew towards her end. Brave and cheerful to the last, in spite of her long and painful infirmities, Clare caused herself to be raised in bed and, thus reclining, says her contemporary biographer "she spun the finest thread for the purpose of having it woven into the most delicate material from which she afterwards made more than one hundred corporals, and, enclosing them in a silken burse, ordered them to be given to the churches in the plain and on the mountains of Assisi". When at length she felt the day of her death approaching, Clare, calling her sorrowing religious around her, reminded them of the many benefits they had received from God and exhorted them to persevere faithfully in the observance of evangelical poverty. Pope Innocent IV came from Perugia to visit the dying saint, who had already received the last sacraments from the hands of Cardinal Rainaldo. Her own sister, St. Agnes, had returned from Florence to console Clare in her last illness; Leo, Angelo, and Juniper, three of the early companions of St. Francis, were also present at the saint's death-bed, and at St. Clare's request read aloud the Passion of Our Lord according to St. John, even as they had done twenty-seven years before, when Francis lay dying at the Porziuncula. At length before dawn on 11 August, 1253, the holy foundress of the Poor Ladies passed peacefully away amid scenes which her contemporary biographer has recorded with touching simplicity. The pope, with his court, came to San Damiano for the saint's funeral, which partook rather of the nature of a triumphal procession.

The Clares desired to retain the body of their foundress among them at San Damiano, but the magistrates of Assisi interfered and took measures to secure for the town the venerated remains of her whose prayers, as they all believed, had on two occasions saved it from destruction. Clare's miracles too were talked of far and wide. It was not safe, the Assisians urged, to leave Clare's body in a lonely spot without the walls; it was only right, too, that Clare, "the chief rival of the Blessed Francis in the observance of Gospel perfection", should also have a church in Assisi built in her honour. Meanwhile, Clare's remains were placed in the chapel of San Giorgio, where St. Francis's preaching had first touched her young heart, and where his own body had likewise been interred pending the erection of the Basilica of San Francesco. Two years later, 26 September, 1255, Clare was solemnly canonized by Alexander IV, and not long afterwards the building of the church of Santa Chiara, in honour of Assisi's second great saint, was begun under the direction of Filippo Campello, one of the foremost architects of the time. On 3 October, 1260, Clare's remains were transferred from the chapel of San Giorgio and buried deep down in the earth, under the high altar in the new church, far out of sight and reach. After having remained hidden for six centuries--like the remains of St. Francis--and after much search had been made, Clare's tomb was found in 1850, to the great joy of the Assisians. On 23 September in that year the coffin was unearthed and opened, the flesh and clothing of the saint had been reduced to dust, but the skeleton was in a perfect state of preservation. Finally, on the 29th of September, 1872, the saint's bones were transferred, with much pomp, by Archbishop Pecci, afterwards Leo XIII, to the shrine, in the crypt at Santa Chiara, erected to receive them, and where they may now be seen. The feast of St. Clare is celebrated throughout the Church on 12 August; the feast of her first translation is kept in the order on 3 October, and that of the finding of her body on 23 September.

The sources of the history of St. Clare at our disposal are few in number. They include (1) a Testament attributed to the saint and some charming Letters written by her to Blessed Agnes, Princess of Bohemia; (2) the Rule of the Clares, and a certain number of early Pontifical Bulls relating to the Order; (3) a contemporary Biography, written in 1256 by order of Alexander IV. This life, which is now generally ascribed to Thomas of Celano, is the source from which St. Clare's subsequent biographers have derived most of their information.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

St. Clare of Montefalco

Born at Montefalco about 1268; died there, 18 August, 1308. Much dispute has existed as to whether St. Clare of Montefalco was a Franciscan or an Augustinian; and while Wadding, with Franciscan biographers of the saint, contends that she was a member of the Third Order of St. Francis, Augustinian writers, whom the Bollandists seem to favour, hold that she belonged to their order. It seems, however, more probable to say that St. Clare, when she was still a very young girl, embraced the rule of the Third Order of St. Francis (secular), together with her older sister and a number of other pious young maidens, who wore the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis and followed that particular mode of life in community which their piety and fervour suggested. When later, however, they became desirous of entering the religous state in its strict sense, and of professing the three vows of religion, they petitioned the Bishop of Spoleto for an approved rule of life; and, the Third Order of St. Francis (regular) not being then in existence as an approved religious institute, the bishop imposed upon them in 1290 the rule of the Third Order (regular) of St. Augustine. From her very childhood, St. Clare gave evidence of the exalted sancity to which she was one day to attain, and which made her the recipient of so many signal favours from God. Upon the death of her older sister in 1295, Clare was chosen to succeed her in the office of abbess of the community at Santa Croce; but it was only in obedience to the command of the Bishop of Spoleto that she could be prevailed upon to accept this new dignity. Kind and indulgent towards others, she treated herself with the most unrelenting severity, multiplying her fasts, vigils, and other austeri ties to such an extent that at one time her life was even feared for. To these acts of penance she added the practice of the most profound humility and the most perfect charity, while the suffering of her Redeemer formed the continual subject of her meditation.

Shortly after the death of St. Clare, inquiry into her virtues and the miracles wrought through her intercession was instituted, preparatory to her canonization. It was not, however, until several centuries later that she was canonized by Pope Leo XIII in 1881.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Blessed Clare of Rimini

(Chiara Agolanti), of the order of Poor Clares, born at Rimini in 1282; died there 10 February, 1346. Deprived at an early age of the support and guidance of her parents and of her pious husband, Clare soon fell a prey to the dangers to which her youth and beauty exposed her, and began to lead a life of sinful dissipation.

As she was one day assisting at mass in the church of the Friars Minor, she seemed to hear a mysterious voice that bade her say a Pater and an Ave at least once with fervour and attention. Clare obeyed the command, not knowing whence it came, and then began to reflect upon her life. Putting on the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis, she resolved to expiate her sins by a life of penance, and she soon became a model of every virtue, but more especially of charity towards the destitute and afflicted. When the Poor Clares were compelled to leave Regno on account of the prevailing wars, it was mainly through the charitable exertions of Clare that they were able to obtain a convent and means of sustenance at Rimini. Later, Clare herself entered the order of Poor Clares, along with several other pious women, and became superioress of the convent of Our Lady of the Angels at Rimini. She worked numerous miracles and towards the close of her life was favoured in an extraordinary manner with the gift of contemplation. Her body now reposes in the cathedral of Rimini. In 1782 the cult of Blessed Clare was approved by Pius VI, who permitted her feast to be celebrated in the city and Diocese of Rimini on the tenth of February.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

William Clark

English priest, date of birth unknown, executed at Winchester, 29 Nov., 1603. He was educated at Douai College, which he entered 6 August, 1587. Passing to the English College at Rome in 1589, He was ordained priest and returned to Engla nd in April, 1592. Active in the disputes between the seculars and the Jesuits on the appointment of Blackwell as archpriest, he was one of thirty-three priests who signed the appeal against Blackwell dated from Wisbeach Castle, 17 November, 1600. Conse quently he was included in the attack which Father Persons made against the characters of his opponents. When Clement VIII declared in favour of the appellant clergy (5 October,1602) and restored to them their faculties, an attempt was made, but in vain, to exclude Clark from participation in the privilege. At this time he was in the Clink prison. On Low Sunday he was discovered preparing to say Mass in the prison and was placed in still closer confinement. Shortly after this he became connected with the mysterious conspiracy known as the "Bye Plot". He was committed to the Gatehouse, Westminister, thence to the Tower, and finally to the Castle at Winchester. Nothing was proved against him in relation to the plot save various practices in favour of Catholic interests; nevertheless he was condemned to death 15 November, and executed a fortnight later. He protested that his death was a kind of martyrdom. He is the author of "A Replie unto a certain Libell latelie set foorth by Fa. Parsons", ect. (16 03, s.l.).

G.E. HIND

Claudia

(Klaudia), a Christian woman of Rome, whose greeting to Timothy St. Paul conveys with those of Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, "and all the brethren" (II Tim., iv, 21). Evidently, Claudia was quite prominent in the Roman communtiy. The Linus mentioned in the text is identified by St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, iii, 3) with the successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome; and in the "Apost. Const." VII, 46, he is called the son of Claudia, Linos ho Klaudias, which seems to imply that Claudia was at least as well known as Linus. It has been attempted to prove that she was the wife of Pudens, mentioned by St. Paul; and, further, to identify her with Claudia Rufina, the wife of Aulus Pudens who was the friend of Martial (Martial, Epigr., IV, 13; XI, 54). According to this theory Claudia would be a lady of British birth, probably the daughter of King Cogidubnus. Unfortunately there is not sufficient evidence to make this identification more than possibly true.

W.S. REILLY

Claudianus Mamertus

(The name Ecdicius is unauthorized).

A Gallo-Roman theologian and the brother of St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, d. about 473.

Descended probably from one of the leading families of the country, Claudianus Mamertus relinquished his worldly goods and embraced the monastic life. He assisted his brother in the discharge of his functions, and Sidonius Apollinaris describes him as directing the psalm-singing of the chanters, who were formed into groups and chanted alternate verses, whilst the bishop was at the altar celebrating the sacred mysteries. "Psalmorum hic modulator et phonascus ante altaria fratre gratulante instructas docuit sonare classes" (Epist., IV, xi, 6; V, 13-15). This passage is of importance in the history of liturgical chant. In the same epigram, which constitutes the epitaph of Claudianus Mamertus, Sidonius also informs us that this distinguished scholar composed a lectionary, that is, a collection of readings from Sacred Scripture to be made on the occasion of certain celebrations during the year.

According to the same writer, Claudianus "pierced the sects with the power of eloquence", an allusion to a prose treatise entitled "On the State of the Soul" or "On the Substance of the Soul". Written between 468 and 472, this work was destined to combat the ideas of Faustus, Bishop of Reii (Riez, in the department of Basses-Alpes), particularly his thesis on the corporeity of the soul. Plato, whom he perhaps read in Greek, Porphyry, and especially Plotinus and St. Augustine furnished Claudianus with arguments. But his method was decidedly peripatetic and fore tokened Scholasticism. Even his language had the same characteristics as that of some of the medieval philosophers: hence Claudianus used many abstract adverbs in ter (essentialiter, accidenter, etc.; forty according to La Broise). On the other hand he revived obsolete words and, in a letter to Sapaudus of Vienne, a rhetorician, sanctioned the imitation of Nævius, Plautus, Varro, and Gracchus. Undoubtedly his only acquaintance with these authors was through the quotations used by grammarians and the adoption of their style by Apuleius, whose works he eagerly studied. Of course this tendency to copy his predecessors led Claudianus to acquire an entirely artificial mode of expression which Sidonius, in wishing to compliment, called a modern antique (Epist., IV, iii, 3). Besides the treatise and the letter from Claudianus to Sidonius Apollinaris, found among the letters of the latter (IV, ii). Some poetry has also been ascribed to him, although erroneously. For instance, he has been credited with the "Pange, lingua", which is by Venantius Fortunatas (Carm., II, ii); "Contra vanos poetas ad collegam", a poem recommending the choice of Christian subjects and written by Paulinus of Nola (Carm., xxii); two short Latin poems in honour of Christ, one by Claudius Claudianus (Birt ed., p. 330; Koch ed., p. 248) and the other by Merobaudus (Vollmer ed., p. 19), and two other Greek poems on the same subject, believed to be the work of Claudius Claudianus.

Two facts assign Claudianus Mamertus a place in the history of thought: he took part in the reaction against Semipelagianism, which took place in Gaul towards the close of the fifth century and he was the precursor of Scholasticism, forestalling the system of Roscellinus and Abelard. The logical method pursued by Claudianus commanded the esteem and investigation of Berengarius of Tours, Nicholas of Clairvaux, secretary to St. Bernard, and Richard de Fournival.

SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, Epistulæ, IV, iii, si, V, ii; Gennadius, GENNADIUS, De Viris illustribus, 83; R. DE LA BROISE, Mamerti Claudiani vita eiusque doctrina de anima hominis (Paris, 1890); the best edition is by ENGELBRECHT in the Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum of the Academy of Vienna (Vienna, 1887); for supplementary information cf. CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen-age, Bio-bibliographie (Paris, 1905), II, 2977.

PAUL LEJAY

Claudiopolis

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was a city in Cilicia Tracheia or Byzantine Isauria. The old name is perhaps Kardabounda; under Claudius it became a Roman colony, Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Ninica Claudiopolis. None of its coins are known. It was situated at the lower end of the central Calycadnus valley, before the river enters the narrow gorge which conducts it to the coast lands. Laeke (Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, 107 sq.) has identified it with Mut, the chief village of a caza in the vilayet of Adana, a view which has since been confirmed by epigraphical evidence (Hogarth, Supplem. Papers, Royal Geogr. Society, 1893, III, 651). It was a suffragan of Seleuceia. Only six bishops are mentioned by Lequien (II, 1027); the first, Ædesius, was present at Nicaea in 325; the last John, was present at Constantinople in 533, and is probably identical with the prelate who was a friend of Severus in 508-11 (Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, II, 4, 7, 11). In the tenth century Claudiopolis is mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Them., xxxvi), as one of the ten cities of Isaurian Decapolis. It figures still in the "Notitiae episcopatuum" in the twelfth or thirteenth century. Mut has about 900 inhabitants, and exhibits vast ruins.

Ramsay, Asia Minor, passim; Ruge in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyk., III, 2662; Headlam, Eccl. Sites in Isauria. in Soc. For The Promotion Of Hellenic Studies, Supplem. Papers, I, 22 sq.; Cuinet, Turquie d'Asie, II, 78.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Claudiopolis

A titular see of Bithynia, in Asia Minor. Strabo (XII, 4, 7) mentions a town, Bithynium (Claudiopolis), celebrated for its pastures and cheese. According to Pausanias (VIII, 9) it was founded by Arcadians from Mantinea. As is shown by its coins, it was commonly called Claudiopolis after Claudius. It was the birthplace of Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, who was very generous to the city; afterwards his name was added to that of Claudius on the coins of the city. Theodosius II (408-50) made it the capital of a new province, formed at the expense of Bithynia and Paphlagonia, and called by him Honorias in honour of the Emperor honorius. Claudiopolis was the religious metropolis of the province (so in all "Notitiae episcopatuum"). Lequien (I, 567) mentions twenty titulars of the see to the thirteenth century; the first is St. Autonomus, said to have suffered martyrdom under Diocletian; we may add Ignatius, a friend and correspondent of Photius. The Turkish name for Claudiopolis is Bolou or Boli. It is now the chief town of a sanjak in the vilayet of Castamouni, with 10,000 inhabitants (700 Greeks, 400 Armenians, few Catholics). The town is on the Filias Sou (River Billaeus). There are no important ruins, but many ancient fragments of friezes, cornices, funeral cippi, and stelae.

Texier, Asie Mineure, 149; Perrot, Galatie et Bithynie, 42-45; Cuinet, Turrquie d'Asie, IV, 508 sq.; Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. (London, 1878), s.v. Bithynium.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Francisco Saverio Clavigero

Born at Vera Cruz, Mexico, 9 September, 1731; d. at Bologna, Italy, 2 April, 1787. At the age of seventeen he entered the Society of Jesus. Father José Rafael Campoi, S.J., at the College of St. Peter and St. Paul in Mexico, directed his attention to the valuable collection of documents on Mexican history and antiquities deposited there by Siguenza y Gongora, and he became an enthusiastic investigator in these fields. When the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in 1767, Father Clavigero went to Bologna, where he founded a literary academy and pursued diligently his documentary studies in Mexican aboriginal history. He complied there his "Historica antica del Messico (Cesena, 1780), in opposition to the works of De Pauw, Raynal, and Robertson. While the "Historia antica" is the principal work of Clavigero, he had already published in Mexico several writings of minor importance. After his death there appeared "Storia della California", less appreciated but still not to be neglected by students.

The "Ancient History of Mexico" made considerable impression and met with great favor. Following the book of the Cavaliere Boturini he included a list of sources, paying particular attention to the Indian pictographs, on tissue and other substances, forming part of the Boturini collection, and increasing the list by specimens then extant in various parts of Europe. The catalogue of Indian writers is also taken from Boturini, as Clavigero is careful to state. While materially enlarged since then, and though much additional information has been gained, his catalogue always remains of value. Finally he added a history of the conquest of Mexico. While other Jesuit writers on America, who wrote after the expulsion of the order, like Molina for instance, have maintained in their books an attitude of dignified impartiality, Clavigero has not been able to conceal his resentment for that measure. He does not allude to it, but criticizes the conquerors harshly, extolling at the same time, beyond measure, the character and culture of the Indians. The writings of de Pauw, Adair, and Robertson are severely criticized. The two former have, in their hypercritical tendencies, gone entirely too far in denying to the Indians of certain kind and degree of polity, but Robertson was much more moderate, hence nearer the truth, and more reliable than Clavigero himself. The later is an unsafe guide in American ethnology, on the account of his exaggeration of the culture of the Mexican sedentary tribes. But the systematic arrangement of his work, his style, and the sentimental interest taken in the conquered peoples insured to his book a popular sympathy that for a long time controlled the opinions of students as well as of general readers. The "Storia antica del Messico" was translated into English by Cullen (London, 1787); there is a German translation of the English version (Leipzig, 1789); Spanish editions (London, 1826; Mexico 1844 and 1853).

Beristain de Souza, Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional (Mexico, 1816 and 1883); Diccinario universal de Historia y Geografia (Mexico, 1853).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Christopher Clavius

Christoph Clau, mathematician and astronomer, whose most important achievement related to the reform of the calendar under Gregory XIII; born at Bamberg, Bavaria, 1538; died at Rome, 12 February, 1612. The German form of his name was latinized into "Clavius". He entered the Society of Jesus in 1555 and his especial talent for mathematical research showed itself even in his preliminary studies at Coimbra. Called to Rome by his superiors as teacher of this branch of science at the well-known Collegium Romanum, he was engaged uninterruptedly there until his death. the greatest scholars of his time, such men as Tycho Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Giovanni Antonio Magini, esteemed him highly. He was called the "Euclid of the sixteenth century"; and even his scientific opponents, like Scaliger, said openly that they would rather be censured by a Clavius than praised by another man. There has, however, been no lack of persistent disparagement of Catholic scholars even down to our own times; and therefore much that is inexact, false, and mythical has been put into circulation about Clavius, as for example that he was originally named "Schlüssel" (clavis, "key"), that he was appointed a cardinal, that he met his death by the thrust of a mad bull, etc. His relations with Galilei, with whom he remained on friendly terms until his death, have also been often misrepresented. The best evidence of the actual achievements of the great man is presented by his numerous writings, which at the end of his life he reissued at Mainz in five huge folio volumes in a collective edition under the title, "Christophori Clavii e Scoietate Jesu opera mathematica, quinque tomis distributa". The first contains the Euclidian geometry and the "Spheric" of Theodosius (Sphaericorum Libri III); the second, the practical geometry and algebra; the third is composed of a complete commentary upon the "Sphaera" of Joannes de Sacro Bosco (John Holywood), and a dissertation upon the astrolabe; the fourth contains what was up to that time the most detailed and copious discussion of gnomonics, i.e. the art of constructing all possible sun-dials; finally, the fifth contains the best and most fundamental exposition of the reform of the calendar accomplished under Gregory XIII.

Many of these writings had already appeared in numerous previous editions, especially the "Commentarius in Sphaeram Joannis de Sacro Bosco" (Rome, 1570, 1575, 1581, 1585, 1606; Venice, 1596, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1607, Lyons, 1600, 1608, etc.); likewise the "Euclidis Elementorum Libri XV" (Rome 1574, 1589, 1591, 1603, 1605; Frankfort 1612). After his death also these were republished in 1617, 1627, 1654, 1663, 1717, at Cologne, Frankfort, and Amsterdam, and were even translated into Chinese. In his "Geometria Practica" (1604) Clavius states among other things a method of dividing a measuring scale into subdivisions of any desired smallness, which is far more complete than that given by Nonius and must be considered as the precursor of the measuring instrument named after Vernier, to which perhaps the name Clavius ought accordingly to be given. The chief merit of Clavius, however, lies in the profound exposition and masterly defence of the Gregorian calendar reform, the execution and final victory of which are due chiefly to him. Cf. "Romani calendarii a Gregorio XIII restituti explicatio" (Rome, 1603); "Novi calendarii Romani apologia (adversus M. Maestlinum in Tubingensi Academiâ mathematicum)" (Rome, 1588). Distinguished pupils of Clavius were Grienberger and Blancanus, both priests of the Society of Jesus.

ADOLF MÜLLER

Claudius Clavus

(Or NICHOLAS NIGER.)

The latinized form of the name of the old Danish cartographer Claudius Claussön Swart, born in the village of Salling, on the Island of Fünen, 14 September, 1388; date of death unknown. He was the first man to make a map of North-Western Europe, which, moreover, included the first map of Greenland. He was apparently an ecclesiastic. In the course of his frequent journeys he went to Italy, where in 1424 he aroused much interest among the Humanists of Rome by announcing that in the Cistercian monastery of Soroe, near Roeskilde, he had seen three large volumes which contained the "Ten Decades" of Livy; according to his own statement he had read the titles of the chapters (decem Livii decades, quarum capita ipse legisset). Through his intercourse with the Humanists he became acquainted with the maps and descriptions of Ptolemy, and was thus led to supplement the work of Ptolemy by adding to it a chart and description of the North-West country. Clavus first turned his knowledge of Scandinavia and Greenland to account in the geographical drawing and description which has been preserved in the Ptolemy manuscript of 1427 of Cardinal Filiaster. The manuscript is now in the public library of Nancy. Descriptions of it have been repeatedly given by Waitz, Nordenskjold, Storm and others. The facsimile of Clavus's map and his description of the parts contained, which were published by Nordenkiold and Storm, show that he gave Greenland and Iceland the correct geographical position, namely, west of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Far more important, however, for the history of cartography is the second map and description of North-Western Europe and Greenland that Clavus produced. As yet, unfortunately, the original of this work has not been found, nor does any copy contain both the map and the description. This second map has been preserved in the works of the German cartographers, Donnus Nicholas Germanus and Henricus Martellus Germanus, who lived at Florence in the second half of the fifteenth century. Until recently, second descriptive text belonging to the map has only been known by the citations of Schoner and Friedlieb (Irenicus); the complete text was not known until it was found by Bjornbo in two codices in the imperial library at Vienna. Bjornbo's discovery is especially important as it is now certain that Claudius Clavus was actually in Greenland and that he claims to have pushed his journey along the west coast as far as 70°10' N. lat. Another fact that lends importance to this discovery is that an explanation has at last been found for the incomprehensible names on the old maps of Greenland. Local names in Greenland and lceland, so entirely different from those that appear in the Icelandic sagas, for a long time served the defenders of the zeni as an argument that the map of Greenland was the work of the elder Zeno. It is now clear from the list of names given by Clavus that the Icelandic names on the map are not the real designations of places, but merely the names of Runic characters. In the same manner, when he came to Greenland, Claudius Clavus used the recessive words of the first stanza of an old Danish folk-song, the scene of which is laid in Greenland, to designate the headlands and rivers that seemed to him most worthy of note as he sailed from the north-east coast of coast. In the linguistic form of the words the dialect of the Island of Fünen is still evident. The discovery also makes clear how the younger Zeno was able to add to the forged story of a journey made in 1558 a comparatively correct map of the northern countries, and how he came to make use of the lines beginning: Thaer boer eeynh manh ij eyn Groenenlandz aa etc., which run in English:

The second map of Clavus exercised a great influence on the development of cartography. As Clavus in drawing his map of North-Western Europe and Greenland made use of all authorities to be had in his time, e.g. Ptolemy's portolanos (marine maps) and itineraries, so the map-makers of succeeding centuries adopted his map, either directly or indirectly: thus, in the fifteenth century, Donnus Nicholas Germanus and Henricus Martellus; in the sixteenth century, Waldseemuller, Nicolò Zeno, Rusclli, Moletius, Ramusio, Mercator, Ortelius; in the seventeenth century, Hondius, Blaeu, and others; in the eighteenth century, Homann and his successors. It is evident that scarcely any other map has exerted so permanent an influence as of Greenland by Claudius Clavus, "the first cartographer of America".

JOSEPH FISCHER

James Clayton

Priest, confessor of the faith, b. at Sheffield, England, date of birth not know; d. a prisoner in Derby gaol, 22 July, 1588. He was the son of a shoemaker, and, being apprenticed to a blacksmith for seven years, spent his leisure hours in educating himself, giving special attention to the study of Latin. His studies led him to embrace the Catholic religion, and he was sent to the English College at Reims (1582), where he was ordained priest in 1585, and immediately returned to England to labour in his native county. Four years later, while visiting the Catholic prisoners in Derby gaol, he was apprehended and condemned to death for exercising his priestly office. His brothers pleaded for his pardon and his execution was delayed, though he was still kept a prisoner. Prison life brought on a sickness of which he died.

FOLEY, Records S.J. (London, Roehampton, 1875-1879), III, 47, 230, 802, Douay Diaries, ed. KNOX (London, 1878), 12,29,184, 186, 200, 205, 262, 296; ELY, Certain Brief Notes, etc. (Paris, 1603), 206.

G.E. HIND

Clazomenae

A titular see of Asia Minor. The city had been first founded on the southern shore of the Ionian Sea (now Gulf of Smyrna), about 15 miles from Smyrna; it was one of the twelve cities of the Ionian Confederation, and reached the acme of its importance under the Lydian kings. After the death of Croesus its inhabitants, through fear of the Persians, took refuge on the island opposite their town (today St. John's Isle), which was joined to the mainland by Alexander the Great; the pier has been restored and is yet used as means of communication between the modern Vourla and the island, on which there is now an important quarantine hospital. Clazomenae is the birthplace of the philosophers Hermotimus and Anaxagoras. The see was a suffragan Ephesus. Lequien (I, 729) mentions two bishops: Eusebius, present at Ephesus and chalcedon, in 431 and 451; and Macarius, at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, in 869. When Smyrna was raised to the rank of a metropolis (perhaps as early as the sixth century) Clazomenae was attached to it, as is shown by Parthey's "Notitiae", 3 and 10. In 1387 it was given again to Ephesus by a synodal act of the patriarch Nilus (Miklosich and Müller, "Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopol.", II, 103). After this date there is no apparent trace of its history; nothing remains of the city except the ancient pier.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Clean and Unclean

The distinction between legal and ceremonial, as opposed to moral, cleanness and uncleanness which stands out so prominently in Mosaic legislation (q.v.).

Jan Van Cleef

A Flemish painter, b. in Guelderland in 1646, d. at Ghent, 18 December, 1716. He was a pupil of Luigi Primo (Gentile) and Gaspard de Craeyer. When Craeyer died, Cleef was commissioned to complete his master's work in the churches and to finish the cartoons for the tapestry ordered by Louis XIV. The churches and convents in Flanders and Brabant are rich in his paintings.

He was a splendid draughtsman, a good colourist celebrated for his management of drapery and for his charming portrayal of children's heads and the attractive faces of his women. In a school pre-eminent in portraiture Jan held a high place. He accomplished a vast amount of work, all showing the influence of his masters and tending more to Italian than Flemish methods. His favourite subjects were Scriptural and religious, and his treatment of them was simple and broad. His masterpiece, "Nuns Giving Aid during the Plague", in the convent of the Black Nuns, at Ghent, rivals the work of Van Dyck.

For bibliography, see CLEEF, Joost Van.

LEIGH HUNT

Joost van Cleef

(JOSSE VAN CLEVE).

The "Madman", a Flemish painter born in Antwerp c. 1520, died c. 1556. He was one of twenty van Cleefs who painted in Antwerp, but whether the well-known Henry, Martin, and William (the younger) were kin of his cannot be determined. Of his father, William (the elder), we know only that he was a member of he Antwerp Academy, which body Joost joined. Joost was a brilliant and luminous colourist, rivalling, in this respect, the Italians, whose methods he followed. Severity and hardness of outline somewhat marred his otherwise fine draughtsmanship. Portraiture in the sixteenth century was represented by Joost van Cleef; and Kugler places him, artistically, between Holbein and Antonio Moro, his "Portrait of a Man" in Munich (Pinakotheck) being long attributed to Holbin. He painted in France, England, and Germany. The celebrated portrait painter of Cologne, Bruyn, was a pupil. Imaging himself unappreciated, he went to Spain and was presented to Phillip II by Moro, the court painter.

Because Henry VIII, according to English authorities chose Titian's pictures in preference to his, van Cleef became infuriated, and his frenzy later developed into permanent insanity. The French contend that it was Philip, in Spain, who gave Titian the preference. The most distressing feature of Joost insanity was that he retouched and ruined his finished pictures whenever he could gain access to them, and his family finally had to place him under restraint. Beautiful altar-pieces by van Cleef are found in many Flemish churches, notably "The Last Judgment" (Ghent). Perhaps the most celebrated of his works is the "Baccus" (Amsterdam), whose young face is crowned with prematurely grey hair. "A Virgin" (Middleburg) is noteworthy as having a charming landscape for the background, a combination rare in those days. Other works are: "Portrait of the Painter and his wife", at Windor Castle; "Portrait of a Young Man", at Berlin; and "Portrait of a Man", at Munich.

LEIGH HUNT

Martin Van Cleef

A Flemish painter, born at Antwerp in 1520; died in 1570; was the son of the painter William (the younger William) and was throughout his life closely associated with his brother Henry, who exerted great influence over his artistic career. Deschamps asserts that Martin and Joost were brothers, but the majority of writers on Flemish art agree that Joost was the son of the elder William. Martin studied under Franz Floris, "the incomparable Floris", and at first exhibited a strong predilection for landscape work. Later on, however, persuaded by Henry, devoted himself wholly to figure-painting. Historical subjects were his favourites, but he also achieved great success in genre painting. The latter has been stigmatized as vulgar and suggestive, but while coarse, and reflecting the peasant life of the Flemings, it differed but little in this respect from canvases of the great Dutchmen. After a few early attempts in large compositions after the Italian manner of Floris, he painted small pictures only, and these with great spirit and thorough technic. His work is delicate and refined in treatment, harmonious in colour, and excellent in draughtsmanship.

Martin van Cleef painted in the landscapes the figures of many eminent contemporaries, Gilles and Franz Floris among them, and he continually collaborated with his brother Henry in that way. Henry reciprocated and added to Martin's s figure-pieces landscape backgrounds charming in colour and design, and harmonizing well with the rest of the picture. On many of his works Martin painted, as a mark, a small ape -- playing thus on his name -- and in consequence is frequently called the "Master of the Ape". He was admitted to the Antwerp Academy, and in 1551 became a member of the St. Luke's Guild of Artists. He never travelled from his native Flanders, and died of gout at the age of fifty, leaving four sons -- all of them painters.

LEIGH HUNT

Mathieu-Nicolas Poillevillain de Clémanges

(Or CLAMANGES)

A French Humanist and theologian, b. in Champagne about 1360; d. at Paris between 1434 and 1440. He made his studies in the College of Navarre at Paris, and in 1380 received the degree of Licentiate, later on that of Master of Arts. He studied theology under Gerson and Pierre d'Ailly, and received the degree of Bachelor of Theology in 1393. He had begun to lecture at the university in 1391 and was appointed its rector in 1393, a position he filled until 1395. The Church was then agitated by the Western Schism, and three methods were proposed to re-establish peace: compromise, concession, and a general council. From 1380 to 1394 the University of Paris advocated a general council. In 1394 another tendency was manifest; i.e. both Boniface IX and Clement VII were held responsible for the continuance of the schism, and their resignations decreed to be the means of obtaining peace. To this end a letter was written to King Charles VI by three of the most learned masters of the university, Pierre d'Ailly, Gilles des Champs, and Clémanges. The two first prepared the content, to which Clémanges gave a Ciceronian elegance of form. The letter was unsuccessful, and the university was ordered to abstain from further discussion. Clémanges, forced to resign the rectorship of the university, then became canon and dean of Saint-Clodoald (1395), and later on canon and treasurer of Langres. The antipope Benedict XIII, who admired his Latin style, took him for his secretary in 1397, and he remained at Avignon until 1408, when he abandoned Benedict because of the latter's conflict with Charles VI. Clémanges now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Valfonds and later to Fontain-du-Bose. In these two retreats he wrote his best treatises, "De Fructu eremi" (dedicated to Pierre d'Ailly), "De Fructu rerum adversarum", "De novis festivitatibus non instituendis", and "De studio theologico", in which latter work he exhibits his dislike for the Scholastic method in philosophy. In 1412 he returned to Langres, and was appointed Archdeacon of Bayeux. His voice was heard successively at the Council of Constance (1414), and at Chartres (1421), where he defended the "liberties" of the Gallican Church. In 1425 he was teaching rhetoric and theology in the College of Navarre, where, most probably, he died. Clémanges is also credited with the authorship of the work "De corrupto Ecclesiae statu", first edited by Cordatus (possibly Hutten) in 1513, a violent attack on the morality and discipline of the contemporary Church; hence he is sometimes considered a Reformer of the type of Wyclif and Hus. Schubert, however, in his book "Ist Nicolaus von Clémanges der Verfasser des Buches De corrupto Ecclesiae statu?" (Grossenhain, 1882; Leipzig, 1888) has shown that, although a contemporary, Clémanges was not the author of the book. His works were edited in two volumes by J. Lydius, a Protestant minister of Frankfort (Leyden, 1613). His letters are in d'Achery (below) I, 473 sqq.

J.B. DELAUNAY

Charles Clémencet

Benedictine historian, b. at Painblanc, in the department of Côte-d'Or, France, 1703; d. at Paris, 5 August, 1778. Clémencet entered the Congregation of Saint-Maur at an early age; for a short time he was lector of rhetoric at Pont-le-Voy, but, on account of his great abilities, was soon called to Paris. Here he took part in almost all of the important literary labours of his congregation, showing a marked preference for historical research. At first his superiors commissioned him to edit the "bibliotheca" (Myriobiblion) of Photius. Clémencet soon retired from this task and devoted all his powers to a chronological work for which Dantine, another member of the congregation, had made the preparatory studies. This chronology, Clémencet's principal work, had the very prolix title: "l'art de vérifier les dates où faits historiques des chartes, des chroniques, et anciens monuments depuis la naissance de Jésus-Christ, par le moyen d'une table chronologique, ou l'on trouve les années de Jésus-Christ et de l'Ere d'Espagne, les Indictions, le Cycle pascal, les Pâques de chaque année, les Cycles solaires et lunaires. Avec un Calendrier perpétuel, l'Histoire abrégée des conciles, des papes, des empereurs romains, grecs, français, allemands et tures; des rois de France, d'Espagne et d'Angleterre, d'Ecosse, de Lombardie, de Sicile, de Jérusalem, etc., des duccs de Bourgogne, de Normandie, de Bretagne; des Comtes de Toulouse, de Champagne et de Blois par des religieux bénédictins de la congrégation de Saint Maur" (Paris, 1750). The work was compiled with extraordinary industry, and contains, as the title shows, a large amount of historical material. In its judgment of persons and facts, however, it betrayed a strong bias to Jansenism and Gallicanism, and was, consequently, frequently attacked, one opponent in particular being the Jesuit Patouillet. The assertion was made, and not without reason, that the title out to read: "L'art de vérifier les dates et falsifier les faits".

Clémencet also wrote volumes X and XI, issued at Paris, 1756 and 1759, of the monumental work "Histoire littéraire de la France". The volumes prepared by Clémencet are a rich collection of authorities and are of importance not only for the literary history of France but also for the history of the development of all the nations of the Middle Ages. It was intended that he should edit volume XII of the "Histoire littéraire", preparing for it the life of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, but he gave up the undertaking and wrote instead an independent work entitled: "Histoire des vies et écrits de Saint-Bernard et de Pierre le Vénérable" (Paris, 1773). His strong predilection for Jansenism is shown in two of his writings, namely: "Histoire générale de Port-Royal depuis la reforme de cette abbaye jusqu'à son entiere destruction (10 vols., Amsterdam, 1755-1757), and "Conferences de la Mère Angélique de Saint-Jean, Abbesse de Port-Royal" (3 vols., Utrecht, 1760). Of the former of these two works only the first half could be published, as the second part contained too strong a defence of Jansenism. On account of his leaning to Jansenism, Clémencet was a bitter opponent of the Jesuits. He attacked them in several exceedingly sharp pamphlets and worked for the suppression of the Society. Among his literary labours should also be mentioned his share in an excellent edition of the works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Prudentius Maranus, another member of the Congregation of Saint-Maur, had begun the task. Clémencet issued the first volume under the title: "Gregorii Theologi opera quae extant omnia" (Paris, 1778). This edition is still valuable and far surpasses all the earlier editions.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Franz Jacob Clemens

A German Catholic philosopher, b. 4 October, 1815, at Coblenz; d. 24 February, 1862, at Rome. After spending some time in an educational institutional at Metz, he entered, at the age of sixteen, the Jesuit College of Fribourg, Switzerland, attended the Gymnasium at Coblenz, and thence passed to the University of Bonn. In 1835 he matriculated at the University of Berlin, where he devoted special attention to the study of philosophy and received the doctorate in philosophy (1839). At the end of a literary journey through German and Italy, he became, in 1843, instructor in philosophy at the University of Bonn, and taught there with great success until 1856. In 1848 he was elected a member of the Frankfort Parliament, and attended, at Mainz, the first General Congress of German Catholics, at which he suggested the foundation of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Germany. In 1856 he was appointed professor of philosophy in the Academy of Munster. So great was his popularity as a teacher at Bonn that, when he removed to Munster, he was followed by some seventy students. The attendance at his lectures in the Westphalian capital was an extraordinarily large one; but his health failed after a few years. In 1861, upon the advice of his physicians, he sought relief in a southern climate; he died at Rome in the beginning of the following year and was buried at the Gesù.

Clemens was a layman of sound Catholic principles, who ably defended the Church even on theological questions. He published his first great work, "Giordano Bruno und Nikolaus von Cusa", in 1847, at Bonn. He also wrote in defence of the Holy Coat of Trier, "Der heilige Rock zu Trier und die protestantische Kritik" (1845), against Gildemeister and von Sybel. His other principal writings were connected with two controversies in which he became involved. His book, "Die speculative Theologie A. Günthers" (Cologne, 1853), a clear demonstration of the contradiction between Catholic doctrine and the views of Günther, elicited answers from Professors Baltzer and Knoodt, to which Clemens replied. His "De Scholasticorum sententiâ, philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam, commentatio" (Münster, 1856) treated of the subordinate position which philosophy should occupy in regard to theology. It brought him into conflict with Professor Kuhn of Tübingen, against whom he published, in defence of his position: "Die Wahrheit etc." (Münster, 1860) and "Über das Verhältniss, etc." (Mainz, 1860).

Der Katholic (1862), I, 257-80; Lit. Handweiser (1862), 88-89; Stockl in Allg. deut. Biog. (Leipzig, 1876), IV, 315-17; Dublin Rev. (1862-63), LII, 417-18).

N.A. WEBER

Clemens non Papa

(Jacques Clement).

Representative of the Flemish or Netherland School of music of the sixteenth century; d. 1558. All that is known with reasonable certainty of his life is that he preceded Nicolas Gombert (1495-1570) as choirmaster at the court of Charles V. An indication of his fame is his nickname non Papa, given to distinguish him from the contemporaneous Pope Clement VII (1523-34). While his style is always noble and fluent, he shows the fault of his time and school of elaborating contrapuntal forms at the expense of a clear and distinct declamation of the text. Clemens was, nevertheless, one of the chief forerunners of Palestrina and Orlandus Lassus, who alone were able to overshadow him. Some of his more important works are: ten masses, one for six, five for five, and four for four voices, published by Petrus, Phalesius at Louvain (1555-80), a large number of motets, and four volumes of "Souter Liedekens", that is psalms set to familiar Netherland melodies, published by Tylmann Susato at Antwerp (1556-57). Ambros, Gesch. der Musik (Leipzig, 1881); Riemann, Handbuch der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1907).

JOSEPH OTTEN

Pope St. Clement I

Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the "Apostolic Fathers ". His feast is celebrated 23 November. He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him.

I. THE FOURTH POPE

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, who see chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the "Liberian Catalogue" of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the "Liber Pontificalis". Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius's, and is our principal means for restoring the lost Greek of the latter; the Armenian version and Coptic epitomes of it are not to be depended on. The varieties of order are as follows:

1. Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
   Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
   Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
2. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
3. Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), "Liberian Catal."- "Liber. Pont."].
4. Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus. Lightfoot thought that the transposition of Clement in the "Liberian Catalogue" was a mere accident, like the similar error "Anicetus, Pius" for "Pius Anicetus", further on in the same list. But it may have been a deliberate alteration by Hippolytus, on the ground of the tradition mentioned by Tertullian. St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles ". Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. Now Linus and Cletus had each twelve years attributed to them in the list. If Hippolytus found Cletus doubled by an error (Cletus XII, Anacletus XII), the accession of Clement would appear to be thirty-six years after the death of the Apostles. As this would make it almost impossible for Clement to have been their contemporary, it may have caused Hippolytus to shift him to an earlier position. Further, St. Epiphanius says (loc. cit.): "Whether he received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office, for he says in one of his epistles 'I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace', (for we have found this set down in certain Memoirs), or whether he was appointed by the Bishop Cletus after he had succeeded the Apostles, we do not clearly know." The "Memoirs" were certainly those of Hegesippus. It seems unlikely that he is appealed to only for the quotation from the Epistle, c. liv; probably Epiphanius means that Hegesippus stated that Clement had been ordained by Peter and declined to be bishop, but twenty-four years later really exercised the office for nine years. Epiphanius could not reconcile these two facts; Hippolytus seems to have rejected the latter.

Chronology

The date intended by Hegesippus is not hard to restore. Epiphanius implies that he placed the martyrdom of the Apostles in the twelfth year of Nero. Africanus calculated the fourteenth year (for he had attributed one year too little to the reigns of Caligula and Claudius), and added the imperial date for the accession of each pope; but having two years too few up to Anicetus he could not get the intervals to tally with the years of episcopate given by Hegesippus. He had a parallel difficulty in his list of the Alexandrian bishops.

If we start, as Hegesippus intended, with Nero 12 (see last column), the sum of his years brings us right for the last three popes. But Africanus has started two years wrong, and in order to get right at Hyginus he has to allow one year too little to each of the preceding popes, Sixtus and Telesphorus. But there is one inharmonious date, Trajan 2, which gives seven and ten years to Clement and Euaristus instead of nine and eight. Evidently he felt bound to insert a traditional date -- and in fact we see that Trajan 2 was the date intended by Hegesippus. Now we know that Hegesippus spoke about Clement's acquaintance with the Apostles, and said nothing about any other pope until Telesphorus, "who was a glorious martyr." It is not surprising, then, to find that Africanus had, besides the lengths of episcopate, two fixed dates from Hegesippus, those of the death of Clement in the second year of Trajan, and of the martyrdom of Telesphorus in the first year of Antoninus Pius. We may take it, therefore, that about 160 the death of St. Clement was believed to have been in 99.

Identity

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer, Phil., iv, 3, and 80 do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome -- but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family. The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin. Probably he was a freedman or son of a freedman of the emperor's household, which included thousands or tens of thousands. We know that there were Christians in the household of Nero (Phil., iv, 22). It is highly probable that the bearers of Clement's letter, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, were of this number, for the names Claudius and Valerius occur with great frequency in inscriptions among the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius (and his two predecessors of the same gens) and his wife Valeria Messalina. The two messengers are described as "faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably", thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero's persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled "Virgin and Martyr", is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.

Martyrdom

Of the life and death of St, Clement nothing is known. The apocryphal Greek Acts of his martyrdom were printed by Cotelier in his "Patres Apost." (1724, I, 808; reprinted in Migne, P. G., II, 617, best edition by Funk, "Patr. Apost.", II, 28). They relate how he converted Theodora, wife of Sisinnius, a courtier of Nerva, and (after miracles) Sisinnius himself and four hundred and twenty-three other persons of rank. Trajan banishes the pope to the Crimea, where he slakes the thirst of two thousand Christian confessors by a miracle. The people of the country are converted, seventy-five churches are built. Trajan, in consequence, orders Clement to be thrown into the sea with an iron anchor. But the tide every year recedes two miles, revealing a Divinely built shrine which contains the martyr's bones. This story is not older than the fourth century. It is known to Gregory of Tours in the sixth. About 868 St. Cyril, when in the Crimea on the way to evangelize the Chazars, dug up some bones in a mound (not in a tomb under the sea), and also an anchor. These were believed to be the relics of St. Clement. They were carried by St. Cyril to Rome, and deposited by Adrian II with those of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the high altar of the basilica of St. Clement in Rome. The history of this translation is evidently quite truthful, but there seems to have been no tradition with regard to the mound, which simply looked a likely place to be a tomb. The anchor appears to be the only evidence of identity but we cannot gather from the account that it belonged to the scattered bones. (See Acta SS., 9 March, II, 20.) St. Clement is first mentioned as a martyr by Rufinus (c. 400). Pope Zozimus in a letter to Africa in 417 relates the trial and partial acquittal of the heretic Caelestius in the basilica of St. Clement; the pope had chosen this church because Clement had learned the Faith from St. Peter, and had given his life for it (Ep. ii). He is also called a martyr by the writer known as Praedestinatus (c. 430) and by the Synod of Vaison in 442. Modern critics think it possible that his martyrdom was suggested by a confusion with his namesake, the martyred consul. But the lack of tradition that he was buried in Rome is in favour of his having died in exile.

The Basilica

The church of St. Clement at Rome lies in the valley between the Esquiline and Coelian hills, on the direct road from the Coliseum to the Lateran. It is now in the hands of the Irish Province of Dominicans. With its atrium, its choir enclosed by a wall, its ambos, it is the most perfect model of an early basilica in Rome, though it was built as late as the first years of the twelfth century by Paschal II, after the destruction of this portion of the city by the Normans under Robert Guiscard. Paschal II followed the lines of an earlier church, on a rather smaller scale, and employed some of its materials and fittings The marble wall of the present choir is of the date of John II (533-5). In 1858 the older church was unearthed, below the present building, by the Prior Father Mulooly, O. P. Still lower were found chambers of imperial date and walls of the Republican period. The lower church was built under Constantine (d. 337) or not much later. St. Jerome implies that it was not new in his time: "nominis eius [Clementis] memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia custodit" (De viris illustr., xv). It is mentioned in inscriptions of Damasus (d. 383) and Siricius (d. 398). De Rossi thought the lowest chambers belonged to the house of Clement, and that the room immediately under the altar was probably the original memoria of the saint. These chambers communicate with a shrine of Mithras, which lies beyond the apse of the church, on the lowest level. De Rossi supposed this to be a Christian chapel purposely polluted by the authorities during the last persecution. Lightfoot has suggested that the rooms may have belonged to the house of T. Flavius Clemens the consul, being later mistaken for the dwelling of the pope; but this seems quite gratuitous. In the sanctuary of Mithras a statue of the Good Shepherd was found.

II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS

1. The "Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians", discussed under III.
2. Two "Epistles to Virgins", extant in Syriac in an Amsterdam MS. of 1470. The Greek originals are lost. Many critics have believed them genuine, for they were known in the fourth century to St. Epiphanius (who speaks of their being read in the Churches) and to St. Jerome. But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine Epistle to the Corinthians. Some writers, as Hefele and Westcott, have attributed them to the second half Or the second century, but the third is more probable (Harnack, Lightfoot). Harnack thinks the two letters were originally one. They were first edited by Wetstein, 1470, with Latin translation, reprinted by Gallandi, "Bibl. vett. Patr.", I, and Migne, P. G., I. They are found in Latin only in Mansi, "Concilia", I, and Funk "Patres Apost.", II. See Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome" (London, 1890), I Bardenhewer, "Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt." (Freiburg im Br., 1902), I; Harnack in "Sitzungsber. der k. preuss. Akad. der Wiss." (Berlin, 1891), 361 and "Chronol." (1904), II, 133.
3. At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the "Recognitions". The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.)
4. Ascribed to Clement are the "Apostolical Constitutions", "Apostolic Canons", and the "Testament of Our Lord", also a Jacobite Anaphora (Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. Coll., Paris, 1716, II; Migne, P.G., II). For other attributions see Harnack, "Gesch. der altchr. Lit." I, 777-80. The "Clementines' or Pseudo-Clementines. (q.v.)

III. THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

The style of the Epistle is earnest and simple, restrained and dignified, and sometimes eloquent. The Greek is correct, though not classical. The quotations from the Old Testament are long and numerous. The version of the Septuagint used by Clement inclines in places towards that which appears in the New Testament, yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; his readings are often with A, but are less often opposed to B than are those in the New Testament; occasionally he is found against the Septuagint with Theodotion or even Aquila (see H. B. Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, Cambridge 1900). The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels. He mentions St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and appears to imply a second. He knows Romans and Titus, and apparently cites several other of St. Paul's Epistles. But Hebrews is most often employed of all New Testament books. James, probably, and I Peter, perhaps, are referred to. (See the lists of citations in Funk and Lightfoot, Westcott and Zahn on the Canon, Introductions to Holy Scripture, such as those of Cornely, Zahn, etc., and "The New Test. in the Apost. Fathers", by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Hist. Theology, Oxford, 1906.) The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): "But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin" (59). "It may, perhaps, seem strange", writes Bishop Lightfoot, "to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case." (I, 70.)

Doctrine

There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory. A passage on the Holy Trinity is important. Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation "The Lord liveth", substituting the Trinity thus: "As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit -- the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth", etc. (58). Christ is frequently represented as the High-Priest, and redemption is often referred to. Clement speaks strongly of justification by works. His words on the Christian ministry have given rise to much discussion (42 and 44): "The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both [missions] therefore came in due order by the will of God..... So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who should believe. And this in no new fashion, for it had indeed been written from very ancient times about bishops and deacons; for thus saith the Scripture: 'I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith"' (a strange citation of Is., lx, 17). . . . "And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration." Rothe, Michiels (Origines de l'episcopat, Louvain, 1900, 197), and others awkwardly understand "if they, the Apostles, should fall asleep". For epinomen dedokasin, which the Latin renders legem dederunt, Lightfoot reads epimonen dedokasin, "they have provided a continuance ". In any case the general meaning is clear, that the Apostles provided for a lawful succession of ministers. Presbyters are mentioned several times, but are not distinguished from bishops. There is absolutely no mention of a bishop at Corinth, and the ecclesiastical authorities there are always spoken of in the. plural. R. Sohm thinks there was as yet no bishop at Corinth when Clement wrote (so Michiels and many other Catholic writers; Lightfoot leaves the question open), but that a bishop must have been appointed in consequence of the letter; he thinks that Rome was the origin of all ecclesiastical institutions and laws (Kirchenrecht 189). Harnack in 1897 (Chronol., I) upheld the paradox that the Church of Rome was so conservative as to be governed by presbyters until Anicetus; and that when the list of popes was composed, c. 170, there had been a bishop for less than twenty years; Clement and others in the list were only presbyters of special influence.

The liturgical character of parts of the Epistle is elaborately -discussed by Lightfoot. The prayer (59-61) already mentioned, which reminds us of the Anaphora of early liturgies, cannot be regarded, says Duchesne, "as a reproduction of a sacred formulary but it is an excellent example of the style of solemn prayer in which the ecclesiastical leaders of that time were accustomed to express themselves at meetings for worship" (Origines du culte chret., 3rd ed., 50; tr., 50). The fine passage about Creation, 32-3, is almost in the style of a Preface, and concludes by introducing the Sanctus by the usual mention of the angelic powers: "Let us mark the whole host of the angels, how they stand by and minister unto His Will. For the Scripture saith: Ten thousand times ten thousand stood by Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and they cried aloud: Holy holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of His glory. Yea, and let us ourselves then being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him." The combination of Daniel, Vii, 10, with Is., vi, 3, may be from a liturgical formula. It is interesting to note that the contemporary Apocalypse of St. John (iv, 8) shows the four living creatures, representing all creation, singing the Sanctus at the heavenly Mass.

The historical references in the letter are deeply interesting: "To pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even until death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two, but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed Place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance (5). It is obvious that these two Apostles are mentioned because they suffered at Rome. It seems that St. Paul went to Spain as he intended (Rom., xv, 28) and as is declared by the spurious Acts of Peter and by the Muratorian fragment. "Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body" (6). The "vast multitude" both of men and women "among ourselves" at Rome refers to the horrible persecution of Nero, described by Tacitus, "Ann.", XV, xliv. It is in the recent past, and the writer continues: "We are in the same lists, and the same contest awaits us" (7)- he is under another persecution, that of Domitian, covertly referred to as a series of "sudden and repeated calamities and reverses", which have prevented the letter from being written sooner. The martyrdom of the Consul Clement (probably patron of the pope's own family) and the exile of his wife will be among these disasters.

Date and authenticity

The date of the letter is determined by these notices of persecution. It is strange that even a few good scholars (such as Grotius Grabe, Orsi, Uhlhorn, Hefele, Wieseler) should have dated it soon after Nero. It is now universally acknowledged, after Lightfoot, that it was written about the last year of Domitian (Harnack) or immediately after his death in 96 (Funk). The Roman Church had existed several decades, for the two envoys to Corinth had lived in it from youth to age. The Church of Corinth is called archai (47). Bishops and deacons have succeeded to bishops and deacons appointed by the Apostles (44). Yet the time of the Apostles is "quite lately" and "our own veneration" (5). The external evidence is in accord. The dates given for Clement's episcopate by Hegesippus are apparently 90-99, and that early writer states that the schism at Corinth took place under Domitian (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xvi, for kata ton deloumenon is meaningless if it is taken to refer to Clement and not to Domitian; besides, the whole of Eusebius's account of that emperor's persecution, III, xvii-xx, is founded on Hegesippus). St. Irenaeus says that Clement still remembered the Apostles, and so did many others, implying an interval of many years after their death. Volkmar placed the date in the reign of Hadrian, because the Book of Judith is quoted, which he declared to have been written in that reign. He was followed by Baur, but not by Hilgenfeld. Such a date is manifestly impossible, if only because the Epistle of Polycarp is entirely modelled on that of Clement and borrows from it freely. It is possibly employed by St. Ignatius, c. 107, and certainly in the letter of the Smyrnaeans on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, c. 156.

The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter's time: "To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord's day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxx). Hegesippus attributed the letter to Clement. Irenaeus, c. 180-5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: "Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles" (III, iii). Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, frequently quotes the Epistle as Clement's, and so do Origen and Eusebius. Lightfoot and Harnack are fond of pointing out that we hear earlier of the importance of the Roman Church than of the authority of the Roman bishop. If Clement had spoken in his own name, they would surely have noted expressly that he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged "presbyter" who had known the Apostles. St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say.

The Second Letter to the Corinthians

An ancient homily by an anonymous author has come down to us in the same two Greek MSS. as the Epistle of Clement, and is called the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. It is first mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxvii), who considered it spurious, as being unknown to the ancients; he is followed (perhaps not independently) by Rufinus and Jerome. Its inclusion as a letter of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus of the whole Bible in the fifth century is the earliest testimony to a belief in its authenticity; in the sixth century it is quoted by the Monophysite leaders Timothy of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch, and it was later known to many Greek writers. This witness is a great contrast to the very early veneration paid to the genuine letter. Hilgenfeld's theory that it is the letter of Pope Soter to the Corinthians, mentioned by Dionysius in the fragment quoted above, was accepted by many critics, until the discovery of the end of the work by Bryennios showed that it was not a letter at all, but a homily. Still Harnack has again and again defended this view. An apparent reference to the Isthmian Games in ~7 suggests that the homily was delivered at Corinth; but this would be in character if it was a letter addressed to Corinth. Lightfoot and others think it earlier than Marcion, c. 140, but its reference to Gnostic views does not allow us to place it much earlier. The matter of the sermon is a very general exhortation, and there is no definite plan or sequence. Some citations from unknown Scriptures are interesting.

The editio princeps of the two "Epistles to the Corinthians" is that of Patrick Young, 1633 (2d ed., 1637), from the famous Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the whole Bible in Greek. A number of editions followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (enumerated by Funk, Gebhardt, and Lightfoot). in the nineteenth we may notice those of C. J. Hefele (Tubingen, 1st ed., 1839), Jacobson (Oxford, 1st ed., 1840, etc.), Dressel (Leipzig, 1857), in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers by these writers. An edition by Bishop J. B. Lightfoot appeared in 1869 (London and Cambridge), one by J. C. M. Laurent in 1870 (Leipzig), and one by 0. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack in 1875 (Leipzig). All these editions are founded on the one MS., which gives both letters incompletely, and not always legibly. On its doubtful readings Tischendorf wrote in 1873 (Clementis Rom. Epistulae, Leipzig), and he gave a so-called facsimile in 1867 (Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici et Vaticani, Leipzig). A photographic reproduction of the whole codex was published at the British Museum in 1879. In 1875 the complete text of both Epistles was published by Bryennios at Constantinople, from-a MS. in the Patriarchal library of that city. It was used in Hilgenfeld's "Clementis Romani Epistulae" (2d ed., Leipzig, 1876), in the second edition of Gebhardt and Harnack (1876). In Lightfoot's edition of 1877 (London) a Syriac version was also used for the first time. The MS. was written in 1170, and is in the Cambridge University Library. It has been published in full by R. L. Bensley and R. H. Kennett, "The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac" (London,1899). Dr. Funk's "Opera Patrum Apostolicorum" first appeared in 1878-81 (Tubingen). The greut and comprehensive posthumous edition of Lightfoot's "Clement of Rome" (which contains a photographic facsimile of the Constantinople MS.) was published in 1890 (2 vols. London). The Greek text and English translation are reprinted by Lightfoot, "The Apostolic Fathers" (1 vol., London, 1891). In 1878 Dom Germain Morin discovered a Latin translation of the genuine Epistle in an eleventh-century MS. in the library of the Seminary of Namur (Anecdota Maredsolana, 2 vols., "S. Clementis ad Corinthios Epistulae versio antiquissima", Maredsous, 1894). The version is attributed to the second century by Harnack and others. It has been employed to correct the text in Funk's latest edition (1901), and by R. Knopf, "Der erste Clemensbrief" (in "Texte und Unters.", New Series, Leipzig, 1899). Besides Lightfoot's excellent English rendering, there is a translation of the two Epistles in "Ante-Nicene Chr. Lit." (Edinburgh, 1873, I).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Pope Clement II

(Suidger.)

Date of birth unknown; enthroned 25 December, 1046; d. 9 October, 1047. In the autumn of 1046 the King of Germany, Henry III, crossed the Alps at the head of a large army and accompanied by a brilliant retinue of the secular and ecclesiastical princes of the empire, for the twofold purpose of receiving the imperial crown and of restoring order in the Italian Peninsula. The condition of Rome in particular was deplorable. In St. Peter's, the Lateran, and St. Mary Major's, sat three rival claimants to the papacy. (See Benedict IX.) Two of them, Benedict IX and Sylvester III, represented rival factions of the Roman nobility. The position of the third, Gregory VI, was peculiar. The reform party, in order to free the city from the intolerable yoke of the House of Tusculum, and the Church from the stigma of Benedict's dissolute life, had stipulated with that stripling that he should resign the tiara upon receipt of a certain amount of money. That this heroic measure for delivering the Holy See from destruction was simoniacal, has been doubted by many; but that it bore the outward aspect of simony and would be considered a flaw in Gregory's title, consequently in the imperial title Henry was seeking, was the opinion of that age.

Strong in the consciousness of his good intentions, Gregory met King Henry at Piacenza, and was received with all possible honours. It was decided that he should summon a synod to meet at Sutri near Rome, at which the entire question should be ventilated. The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his "Essays Critical and Historical" (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was "stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery". Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.

Henry's first choice, the powerful Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, positively refused to accept the burden and suggested his friend Suidger, Bishop of Bamberg. In spite of the latter's protests, the king took him by the hand and presented him to the acclaiming clergy and people as their spiritual chief. Suidger's reluctance was finally overcome, though he insisted upon retaining the bishopric of his beloved see. He might be pardoned for fearing that the turbulent Romans would ere long send him back to Bamberg. Moreover, since the king refused to give back to the Roman See its possessions usurped by the nobles and the Normans, the pope was forced to look to his German bishopric for financial support. He was enthroned in St. Peter's on Christmas Day and took the name of Clement II. He was born in Saxony of noble parentage, was first a canon in Halberstadt, then chaplain at the court of King Henry, who on the death of Eberhard, the first Bishop of Bamberg, appointed him to that important see. He was a man of strictest integrity and severe morality. His first pontifical act was to place the imperial crown upon his benefactor and the queen- consort, Agnes of Aquitaine. The new emperor received from the Romans and the pope the title and diadem of a Roman Patricius, a dignity which, since the tenth century, owing to the uncanonical pretensions of the Roman aristocracy, was commonly supposed to give the bearer the right of appointing the pope, or, more exactly speaking, of indicating the person to be chosen (Hefele). Had not God given His Church the inalienable right of freedom and independence, and sent her champions determined to enforce this right, she would now have simply exchanged the tyrrany of Roman factions for the more serious thraldom to a foreign power. The fact that Henry had protected the Roman Church and rescued her from her enemies gave him no just claim to become her lord and master. Short-sighted reformers, even men like St. Peter Damiani (Opusc., VI, 36) who saw in this surrender of the freedom of papal elections to the arbitrary will of the emperor the opening of a new era, lived long enough to regret the mistake that was made. With due recognition of the prominent part taken by the Germans in the reformation of the eleventh century, we cannot forget that neither Henry III nor his bishops understood the importance of absolute independence in the election of the officers of the Church. This lesson was taught them by Hildebrand, the young chaplain of Gregory VI, whom they took to Germany with his master, only to return with St. Leo IX to begin his immortal career. Henry III, the sworn enemy of simony, never took a penny from any of his appointees, but he claimed a right of appointment which virtually made him head of the Church and paved the way for intolerable abuses under his unworthy successors.

Clement lost no time in beginning the work of reform. At a great synod in Rome, January, 1047, the buying and selling of things spiritual was punished with excommunication; anyone who should knowingly accept ordination at the hands of a prelate guilty of simony was ordered to do canonical penance for forty days. A dispute for precedence between the Sees of Ravenna, Milan, and Aquileia was settled in favour of Ravenna, the bishop of which was, in the absence of the emperor, to take his station at the pope's right. Clement accompanied the emperor in a triumphal progress through Southern Italy and placed Benevento under an interdict for refusing to open its gates to them. Proceeding with Henry to Germany, he canonized Wiborada, a nun of St. Gall, martyred by the Huns in 925. On his way back to Rome he died bear Pesaro. That he was poisoned by the partisans of Benedict IX is a mere suspicion without proof. He bequeathed his mortal remains to Bamberg, in the great cathedral of which his marble sarcophagus is to be seen at the present day. He is the only pope buried in Germany. Many zealous ecclesiastics, notably the Bishop of Liège, now exerted themselves to reseat in the papal chair Gregory VI, whom, together with his chaplain, Henry held in honourable custody; but the emperor unceremoniously appointed Poppo, Bishop of Brixen, who took the name of Damasus II. (See Gregory VI; Benedict IX.)

      Baronius, Annales Eccl., ad ann. 1046, 1047; Lafiteau, La vie de Clément II (Padua, 1752); Will, Die Anfänge der Restauration der Kirche im XI. Jahrhundert (Marburg, 1859); Wittmasnn, Clemens II. in Archiv. f. kathol. Kirchenrecht (1884), LI, 238; Von Reumont, Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), II, 339-44; Artaud de Montor, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867); Heinemann, Der Patriziat d. deutschen Könige (Halle, 1887); Hefele, Conciliengesch., IV, 7606-14.

James F. Loughlin

Pope Clement III

(Paolo Scolari).

Date of birth unknown; elected 19 December, 1187; d. 27 March, 1191. During the short space (1181-1198) which separated the glorious pontificates of Alexander III and Innocent III, no less than five pontiffs occupied in rapid succession the papal chair. They were all veterans trained in the school of Alexander, and needed only their earlier youthful vigour and length of reign to gain lasting renown in an age of great events. Gregory VIII, after a pontificate of two months, died on 17 December, 1187, at Pisa, whither he had gone to expedite the preparations for the recovery of Jerusalem; he was succeeded two days later by the Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina, Paolo Scolari, a Roman by birth. The choice was particularly acceptable to the Romans; for he was the first native of their city who was elevated to the papacy since their rebellion in the days of Arnold of Brescia, and his well-known mildness and love of peace turned their thoughts towards a reconciliation, more necessary to them than to the pope. Overtures led to the conclusion of a formal treaty, by which the papal sovereignty and the municipal liberties were equally secured; and in the following February Clement made his entry into the city amid the boundless enthusiasm of a population which never seemed to have learned the art of living either with or without the pope.

Seated in the Lateran, Pope Clement turned his attention to the gigantic task of massing the forces of Christendom against the Saracens. He was the organizer of the Third Crusade; and if that imposing expedition produced insignificant results, the blame nowise attaches to him. He dispatched legates to the different courts, who laboured to restore harmony among the belligerent monarchs and princes, and to divert their energy towards the reconquest of the Holy Sepulchre. Fired by the example of the Emperor Barbarossa and of the Kings of France and England, a countless host of Christian warriors took the road which led them to Palestine and death. At the time of Clement's death, just before the capture of Acre, the prospects, notwithstanding the drowning of Barbarossa and the return of Philip Augustus, still seemed bright enough.

The death of the pope's chief vassal, William II of Sicily, precipitated another unfortunate quarrel between the Holy See and the Hohenstaufen. Henry VI, the son and successor of Barbarossa, claimed the kingdom by right of his wife Constanza, the only legitimate survivor of the House of Roger. The pope, whose independence was at an end, if the empire and the Two Sicilies were held by the same monarch, as well as the Italians who detested the rule of a foreigner, determined upon resistance, and when the Sicilians proclaimed Tancred of Lecce, a brave but illegitimate scion of the family of Roger, as king, the pope gave him the investiture. Henry advanced into Italy with a strong army to enforce his claim; an opportune death reserved the continuation of the contest to Clement's successor, Celestine III. By a wise moderation Clement succeeded in quieting the disturbances caused by contested elections in the Dioceses of Trier in Germany and St. Andrews in Scotland. He also delivered the Scottish Church from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of York and declared it directly subject to the Holy See. Clement canonized Otto of Bamberg, the Apostle of Pomerania (d. 1139), and Stephen of Thiers in Auvergne, founder of the Hermits of Grammont (d. 1124).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement IV

(Guido Le Gros).

Born at Saint-Gilles on the Rhone, 23 November, year unknown; elected at Perugia 5 February, 1265; d. at Viterbo, 29 November, 1268. After the death of Urban IV (2 October, 1264), the cardinals, assembled in conclave at Perugia, discussed for four monthe the momentous question whether the Church should continue the war to the end against the House of Hohenstaufen by calling in Charles of Anjou, the youngest brother of St. Louis of France, or find some other means of securing the independence of the papacy. No other solution offering itself, the only possible course was to unite upon the Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina, by birth a Frenchman and a subject of Charles. Guido Le Gros was of noble extraction. When his mother died, his father, the knight Foulquois, entered a Carthusian monastery where he ended a saintly life. Guido married, and for a short time wielded the spear and the sword. Then devoting himself to the study of law under the able direction of the famous Durandus, he gained a national reputation as an advocate. St. Louis, who entertained a great respect and affection for him, took him into his cabinet and made him one of his trusted councillors. His wife died, leaving him two daughters, whereupon he imitated his father to the extent that he gave up worldly concerns and took Holy orders.

His rise in the Church was rapid; 1256, he was Bishop of Puy; 1259, Archbishop of Narbonne; December, 1261, Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina. He was the first cardinal created by Urban IV (Babel, Hierarchia Catholica, 7). He was in France, returning from an important legation to England, when he received an urgent message from the cardinals demanding his immediate presence in Perugia. Not until he entered the conclave, was he informed that the unanimous vote of the Sacred College had confided into his hands the destinies of the Catholic Church. He was astonished; for only a man of his large experience could fully realize the responsibility of him whose judgment, at this critical juncture, must irrevocably shape the course of Italian and ecclesiastical history for centuries to come. His prayers and tears failing to move the cardinals, he reluctantly accepted the heavy burden, was crowned at Viterbo, 22 February, and, to honour the saint of his birthday, assumed the name of Clement IV. His contemporaries are unanimous and enthusiastic in extolling his exemplary piety and rigorously ascetic life. He had a remarkable aversion to nepotism. His first act was to forbid any of his relatives to come to the Curia, or to attempt to derive any sort of temporal advantage from his elevation. Suitors for the hands of his daughters were admonished that their prospective brides were "children not of the pope, but of Guido Grossus", and that their dowers should be extremely modest. The two ladies preferred the seclusion of the convent.

The Neapolitan question occupied, almost exclusively, the thoughts of Clement IV during his short pontificate of 3 years, 9 months, and 25 days, which, however, witnessed the two decisive battles of Benevento and Tagliacozzo (1268), and the execution of Conradin. The negotiations with Charles of Anjou had progressed so far under the reign of Urban IV that it is difficult to see how the pope could now well draw back, even were he so inclined. But Clement had no intention of doing so. The power of Manfred and the insecurity of the Holy See were increasing daily. Clement had already, as cardinal, taken an active part in the negotiations with Charles and now exerted himself to the utmost in order to supply the ambitious but needy adventurer with troops and money. Papal legates and mendicant friars appeared upon the scene, preaching a formal crusade, with the amplest indulgences and most lavish promises. Soldiers were obtained in abundance among the warlike chivalry of France; the great difficulty was to find money with which to equip and maintain the army. The clergy and people failed to detect a crusade in what they deemed a personal quarrel of the pope, a "war hard by the Lateran, and not with Saracens nor with Jews" (Dante, Inf., canto xxvii); though, in reality, Saracens, implanted in Italy by Frederick II, made up the main strength of Manfred's army. Although reduced at times to utter destitution, and forced to pledge everything of value and to borrow at exorbitant rates, the pope did not despair; the expedition arrived, and from the military point of view achieved a brilliant success.

Charles, preceding his army, came to Rome by sea, and upon the conclusion of a treaty, by which the liberties of the Church and the overlordship of the Holy See seemed to be most firmly secured, he received the investiture of his new kingdom. On 6 January, 1266, he was solemnly crowned in St. Peter's; not, as he had wished, by the pope, who took up his residence in Viterbo and never saw Rome, but by cardinals designated for the purpose. On 22 February was fought the battle of Benevento, in which Charles was completely victorious; Manfred was found among the slain. Naples opened her gates and the Angevin dynasty was established. Though a good general, Charles had many weaknesses of character that made him a very different ruler from his saintly brother. He was harsh, cruel, grasping, and tyrannical. Clement was kept busy reminding him of the terms of his treaty, reproving his excesses and those of his officials, and warning him that he was gaining the enmity of his subjects. Nevertheless, when a little later, young Conradin, disregarding papal censure and anathemas, advanced to the conquest of what he deemed his birthright, Clement remained faithful to Charles and prophesied that the gallant youth, received by the Ghibelline party everywhere, even in Rome, with unbounded enthusiasm, "was being led like a lamb to the slaughter", and that "his glory would vanish like smoke", a prophecy only too literally fulfilled when, after the fatal day of Tagliacozzo (23 August, 1268), Conradin fell into Charles' merciless hands and was beheaded (29 October) on the market­place of Naples. The fable that Pope Clement advised the execution of the unfortunate prince by saying "The death or life of Conradin means the life or death of Charles", is of a later date, and opposed to the truth. Even the statement of Gregorovius that Clement became an accomplice by refusing to intercede for Conradin, is equally groundless; for it has been shown conclusively, not only that he pleaded for his life and besought St. Louis to add the weight of his influence with his brother, but, moreover, that he sternly reproved Charles for his cruel deed when it was perpetrated. Clement followed "the last of the Hohenstaufen" to the grave just one month later, leaving the papacy in a much better condition than when he received the keys of St. Peter. He was buried in the church of the Dominicans at Viterbo. Owing to divergent views among the cardinals, the papal throne remained vacant for nearly three years. In 1268, Clement canonized St. Hedwig of Poland (d. 1243).

Jordan, Le registres de Clément IV (Paris, 1893, sqq.); Life and Letters in Mansi, XIV, 325; Heidemann, Papst Klemens IV. (Münster, 1903, pt. 1); Hefele, Concilieng. VI, 1-265; HergenrÖther - Kirsch, Kirchengesch., 4th ed. (Freiburg, 1904), II, 566; Priest, Hist. de la Conquéte de Naples par Charles d'Anjou (Paris, 1841); Brayda, La risponsabilitá di Clemente IV e di Carlo X d'Anjou nella morte di Corradino di Soevia (Naples, 1900).

James F. Loughlin

Pope Clement V

(Bertrand de Got.)

Born at Villandraut in Gascony, France, 1264; died at Roquemaure, 20 April, 1314. He was elected, 5 June, 1305, at Perugia as successor to Benedict XI, after a conclave of eleven months, the great length of which was owing to the French and Italian factions among the cardinals. Ten of the fifteen (mostly Italian) cardinals voting elected him. Giovanni Villani's story (Hist. Florent., VIII, 80, in Muratori, SS. RR. Ital., XIII, 417; cf. Raynald, Ann. Eccl., 1305, 2-4) of a decisive influence of Philip the Fair, and the new pope's secret conference with and abject concessions to that king in the forest of Saint-Jean-d'Angély, is quite unhistorical; on the other hand, the cardinals were willing to please the powerful French king whom the late Benedict XI had been obliged to placate by notable concessions, and it is not improbable that some kind of a mutual understanding was reached by the king and the future pope. As Archbishop of Bordeaux, Bertrand de Got was actually a subject of the King of England, but from early youth he had been a personal friend of Philip the Fair. Nevertheless, he had remained faithful to Boniface VIII. The new pope came from a distinguished family. An elder brother had been Archbishop of Lyons, and died (1297) as Cardinal-Bishop of Albano and papal legate in France. Bertrand studied the arts at Toulouse and canon and civil law at Orléans and Bologna. He had been successively canon at Bordeaux, vicar-general of the Archbishop of Lyons (his aforesaid brother), papal chaplain, Bishop of Comminges under Boniface VIII, and eventually Archbishop of Bordeaux, then a difficult office because of the persistent conflict between England and France for the possession of Normandy. The cardinals besought him to come to Perugia and go thence to Rome for his coronation, but he ordered them to repair to Lyons, where he was crowned (14 November, 1305) in presence of Philip the Fair and with great pomp. During the usual public procession the pope was thrown from his horse by a falling wall; one of his brothers was killed on that occasion, also the aged Cardinal Matteo Orsini who had taken part in twelve conclaves and seen thirteen popes. The most precious jewel in the papal tiara (a carbuncle) was lost that day, an incident prophetically interpreted by German and Italian historians, and the next day another brother was slain in a quarrel between servants of the new pope and retainers of the cardinals. For some time (1305- 1309), Pope Clement resided at different places in France (Bordeaux, Poitiers, Toulouse), but finally took up his residence at Avignon, then a fief of Naples, though within the County of Venaissin that since 1228 acknowledged the pope as overlord (in 1348 Clement VI purchased Avignon for 80,000 gold gulden from Joanna of Naples). Strong affection for his native France and an equally influential fear of the quasi-anarchical conditions of Italy, and in particular of the States of the Church and the city of Rome, led him to this fateful decision, whereby he exposed himself to the domination of a civil ruler (Philip the Fair), whose immediate aims were a universal French monarchy and a solemn humiliation of Pope Boniface VIII in return for the latter's courageous resistance to Philip's cunning, violence, and usurpations (Hergenröther).

STATES OF THE CHURCH

The government of the States of the Church was committed by Clement to a commission of three cardinals, while at Spoleto his own brother, Arnaud Garsias de Got, held the office of papal vicar. Giacomo degli Stefaneschi, a senator and popular chief, governed within the city in a loose and personal way. Confusion and anarchy were prevalent, owing to the implacable mutual hatred of the Colonna and Orsini, the traditional turbulence of the Romans, and the frequent angry conflicts between the people and the nobles, conditions which had been growing worse all through the thirteenth century and had eventually driven even the Italian popes to such outside strongholds as Viterbo, Anagni, Orvieto, and Perugia. No more graphic illustration of the local conditions at Rome and in the Patrimony of Peter could be asked than the description of Nicholas of Butrinto, the historiographer of Emperor Henry VII, on his fateful Roman expedition of 1312 [see Von Raumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, Berlin, 1867, II (1), 745-65]. Among the untoward Roman events of Pope Clement's reign was the conflagration 6 May, 1308, that destroyed the church of St. John Lateran, soon rebuilt, however, by the Romans with the aid of the pope. Clement did not hesitate to try the conclusions of war with the Italian state of Venice that had unjustly seized on Ferrara, a fief of the Patrimony of Peter. When excommunication, interdict, and a general prohibition of all commercial intercourse failed, he outlawed the Venetians, and caused a crusade to be preached against them; finally his legate, Cardinal Pélagrue, overthrew in a terrific battle the haughty aggressors (28 August, 1309). The papal vicariate of Ferrara was then conferred on Robert of Naples, whose Catalonian mercenaries, however, were more odious to the people than the Venetian usurpers. In any case, the smaller powers of Italy had learned that they could not yet strip with impunity the inheritance of the Apostolic See, and an example was furnished which the greatest soldier of the papacy, Gil d'Albornoz (q.v.), would better before the century was over.

PROCESS OF BONIFACE VIII

Almost at once King Philip demanded from the new pope a formal condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII; only thus could the royal hate be placated. The king wished the name of Boniface stricken from the list of popes as a heretic, his bones disinterred, burned, and the ashes scattered to the winds. This odious and disgraceful step Clement sought to avert, partly by delay, partly by new favours to the king; he renewed the absolution granted the king by Benedict XI, created nine French cardinals out of a group of ten, restored to the Colonna cardinals their places in the Sacred College, and accorded the king titles of church property for five years. Finally, he withdrew the Bull "Clericis Laicos", though not the earlier legislation on which it was based, and declared that the doctrinal Bull "Unam Sanctam" affected in no disadvantageous manner the meritorious French king, and implied for him and his kingdom no greater degree of subjection to the papal see than formerly existed. The pope was also helpful to Charles of Valois, the king's brother, and pretender to the imperial throne of Constantinople, by granting him a two years' tithe of church revenues; Clement hoped that a crusade operating from a reconquered Constantinople would be successful. In May, 1307, at Poitiers, where peace was made between England and France, Philip again insisted on a canonical process for condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII, as a heretic, a blasphemer, an immoral priest, etc. Eventually, the pope made answer that so grave a matter could not be settled outside of a general council, and the king for a while seemed satisfied with this solution. Nevertheless, he returned frequently and urgently to his proposition. It was in vain that the pope exhibited a willingness to sacrifice the Templars (see below); the merciless king, sure of his power, pressed for the opening of this unique trial, unheard of since the time of Pope Formosus. Clement had to yield, and designated 2 February, 1309, as the date, and Avignon as the place for the trial of his dead predecessor on the shameful charges so long colported about Europe by the Colonna cardinals and their faction. In the document (citation) that called (13 September, 1309) for the witnesses, Clement expressed his personal conviction of the innocence of Boniface, at the same time his resolution to satisfy the king. Though the pope had soon (2 February, 1310) to protest against a false interpretation of his own words, the process was really begun in a consistory of 16 March, 1310, at Avignon. Much delay followed, on one side and the other, apropos chiefly of methods of procedure. Early in 1311, witnesses were examined outside of Avignon, in France, and in Italy, but by French commissaries and mostly on the above-mentioned charges of the Colonna (see BONIFACE VIII). Finally, in February, 1311, the king wrote to Clement abandoning the process to the future council (of Vienne) or to the pope's own action, and promising to cause the withdrawal of the charges; at the same time he protested that his intentions had been pure. One price of these welcome concessions was a formal declaration by Pope Clement (27 April, 1311) of the king's innocence and that of his friends; these representatives of France, the "Israel of the New Alliance", had acted, said the pope, in good faith and with a pure zeal, nor should they fear in the future any canonical detriment from the events of Anagni. William Nogaret was excepted, but on his protestation of innocence, and at the intercession of Philip, a penance was imposed on him and he too received absolution. Only those who detained ecclesiastical property were finally excluded from pardon. The religious zeal of Philip was again acknowledged; all papal acts detrimental to him and his kingdom since November, 1302, were rescinded; the erasures are yet visible in the "Regesta" of Boniface VIII, in the Vatican Archives (see Tosti, "Storia di Bonifazio VIII", Rome, 1886, II, 343-44). This painful situation was closed for Clement V by the Council of Vienne (16 October, 1311), most of whose members were personally favourable to Boniface. It is not certain that the council took up formally the question of the guilt or innocence of Boniface. In their present shape the official Acts of the council are silent, nor do all contemporary writers mention it as a fact. It is true that Giovanni Villani describes Philip and his counsellors as urgent for the condemnation of Boniface by the council, but, he says, the memory of the pope was formally purged from all adverse charges by three cardinals and several jurists; moreover, three Catalonian knights offered to defend with their swords the good name of the Gaetani pope against all comers, whereupon the king yielded, and demanded only that he be declared guiltless of any responsibility for the turn affairs had taken. With the death of his personal enemies, opposition to Boniface diminished, and his legitimacy was no longer denied even in France (Balan, "Il processo di Bonifazio VIII", Rome, 1881).

CLEMENT V AND THE TEMPLARS

Since the final expulsion (1291) of the crusading forces from the Holy Land, the ecclesiastico-military orders in Europe had aroused much adverse criticism, partly because to their jealousies (Templars, Hospitallers or Knights of St. John, Teutonic Order) was attributed the humiliating defeat, partly because of the vast wealth they had acquired in their short existence. The Templars (so-called from the Temple of Jerusalem, pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici, i.e. poor fellow-soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) were the richest. Their fortress-like monasteries, known as Temples, arose in every European land, and by the end of the thirteenth century sheltered the chief banking- system of Europe; the knights were trusted by popes and kings and by persons of wealth because of their uprightness, the good management of their affairs, and their solid credit based on the countless estates of the order and its widespread financial relations. Already before the accession of Pope Clement, their status was growing perilous; apart from the envy aroused by their riches, accusations of pride, exclusiveness, usurpation of episcopal rights, etc. were raised against them. They had resisted several attempts to unite their order with the Hospitallers, and while it is no longer easy to fix the degree of their popularity with the common people, it is certain that in many quarters of Europe they had aroused the cupidity of princes and the jealousy of many higher ecclesiastics, especially in France; without the co-operation of the latter they could never have fallen in so tragic a manner. Their story is told in full in the article Templars; hence, to avoid repetition, it will suffice to mention here the principal facts. In the first year of the pontificate of Clement V the French king began to demand from the pope the suppression of this ecclesiastical order and to set afoot a campaign of violence and calumny such as had so far succeeded in the case of Boniface VIII. If the pope, as was naturally to be feared, refused finally to yield in the matter of the process against his predecessor's memory, he would surely be glad to buy relief with the sacrifice of the Templars. Owing to the weakness and irresolution of Pope Clement, the royal plan succeeded. After an unsuccessful attempt of the pope (in August, 1307) to unite the Templars and the Hospitallers, he yielded to the demands of King Philip and ordered an investigation of the order, against which the king brought charges of heresy (renunciation of Christ, immorality, idolatry, contempt of the Mass, denial of the sacraments, etc.). Philip, however, did not wait for the ordinary operation of the Inquisition, but, with the aid of his confessor, Guillaume de Paris (the inquisitor of France), and his clever, unscrupulous jurists (Nogaret, de Plaisians, Enguerrand de Marigny) struck suddenly at the whole order, 12 October, 1307, by the arrest at Paris of Jacques de Molay, the Grand Commander, and one hundred and forty knights, followed by the inquisitor's mandate to arrest all other members throughout France, and by royal sequestration of the property of the order. Public opinion was cunningly and successfully forestalled by the aforesaid jurists. It was also falsely made to appear that the pope approved, or was consentingly aware, of the royal action, while the co-operation of French inquisitors and bishops put the seal of ecclesiastical approval on an act that was certainly so far one of gross injustice.

While Philip invited the other princes of Europe to follow his example, Clement V protested (27 October) against the royal usurpation of the papal authority, demanded the transfer to his own custody of the prisoners and their property, and suspended the inquisitional authority of the king's ecclesiastic and the French bishops. Philip made an apparent submission, but in the meantime Clement had issued another Bull (22 November) commanding an investigation of the anti-Templar charges in all European countries. (It may be said at once that the results were generally favourable to the order; nowhere, given the lack of torture, were confessions obtrained like those secured in France.) The feeble efforts of Clement to obtain for the order strict canonical justice (he was himself an excellent canonist) were counteracted by the new Bull that dignified and seemed to confirm the charges of the French king, neither then nor later supported by any material evidence or documents outside of his own suborned witnesses and the confessions of the prisoners, obtained by torture or by other dubious methods of their jailers, none of whom dared resist the well-known will of Philip. The alleged secret Rule of the Templars, authorizing the aforesaid charges, was never produced. In the meantime William Nogaret had been busy defaming Pope Clement, threatening him with charges not unlike those pending against Boniface VIII, and working up successfully an anti- Templar public opinion against the next meeting (May, 1308) of the States-General. In July of that year it was agreed between the pope and the king that the guilt or innocence of the order itself should be separated from that of its individual (French) members. The former was reserved to a general council, soon to be convoked at Vienne in Southern France, and to prepare evidence for which, apart from the examinations now going on through Europe, and a hearing before the pope of seventy-two members of the order brought from the prisons of Philip (all of whom confessed themselves guilty of heresy and prayed for absolution), there were appointed various special commissions, the most important of which began its sessions at Paris in August, 1309. Its members, acting in the name and with the authority of the pope, were opposed to the use of torture, hence before them hundreds of knights maintained freely the innocence of the order, while many of those who had formerly yielded to the diocesan inquisitors now retracted their avowals as contrary to truth. When Nogaret and de Plaisians saw the probable outcome of the hearings before the papal commissions, they precipitated matters, caused the Archbishop of Sens (brother of Enguerrand de Marigny) to call a provincial council (Sens was then metropolitan of Paris and seat of the local inquisition tribunal), at which were condemned, as relapsed heretics, fifty-four knights who had recently withdrawn before the papal commissioners their former confessions on the plea that they had been given under torture and were quite false. That same day (12 May, 1310), all these knights were publicly burned at Paris outside the Porte St­Antoine. To the end all protested their innocence.

There could no longer be any question of liberty of defence; the papal commission at Paris suspended tits sessions for six months, and when it met again found before it only knights who had confessed the crimes they were charged with and had been reconciled by the local inquisitors. The fate of the Templars was finally sealed at the Council of Vienne (opened 16 October, 1311). The majority of its three hundred members were opposed to the abolition of the order, believing the alleged crimes unproven, but the king was urgent, appeared in person at the council, and finally obtained from Clement V the practical execution of his will. At the second session of the council, in presence of the king and his three sons, was read the Bull "Vox in excelsis", dated 22 March, 1312, in which the pope said that though he had no sufficient reasons for a formal condemnation of the order, nevertheless, because of the common weal, the hatred borne them by the King of France, the scandalous nature of their trial, and the probable dilapidation of the order's property in every Christian land, he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence. By another Bull of 2 May he vested in the Hospitallers the title to the property of the suppressed order. In one way or another, however, Philip managed to become the chief legatee of its great wealth in France. As to the Templars themselves, those who continued to maintain their confessions were set free; those who withdrew them were considered relapsed heretics and were dealt with as such by the tribunals of the Inquisition. It was only in 1314 that the Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and Geoffroy de Charnay, Grand Preceptor of Normandy, reserved to the judgment of the pope, were condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Thereupon they proclaimed the falsity of their confessions, and accused themselves of cowardice in betraying their order to save their lives. They were at once declared relapsed heretics, turned over to the secular arm by the ecclesiastical authority, and were burned that same day (18 March, 1314). Of Pope Clement it may be said that the few measures of equity that appear in the course of this great crime were owing to him; unfortunately his sense of justice and his respect for the law were counterbalanced by a weak and vacillating character, to which perhaps his feeble and uncertain health contributed. Some think he was convinced of the Templars' guilt, especially after so many of the chief members had admitted it to himself; they explain thus his recommendation of the use of torture, also his toleration of the king's suppression of all proper liberty of defence on the part of the accused. Others believe that he feared for himself the fate of Boniface VIII, whose cruel enemy, William Nogaret, still lived, attorney-general of Philip, skilled in legal violence, and emboldened by a long career of successful infamy. His strongest motive was, in all probability, anxiety to save the memory of Boniface VIII from the injustice of a formal condemnation which the malice of Nogaret and the cold vindictiveness of Philip would have insisted on, had not the rich prey of the Temple been thrown to them; to stand for both with Apostolic courage might have meant intolerable consequences, not only personal indignities, but in the end the graver evil of schism under conditions peculiarly unfavourable for the papacy. (See Philip the Fair; Vienne, Council of; Templars.)

CLEMENT V AND EMPEROR HENRY VII

In pursuance of the vast ambitions of the French monarchy (Pierre Dubois, "De recuperatione terræ sanctæ", ed. Langlois, Paris, 1891), King Philip was anxious to see his brother Charles of Valois chosen King of Germany in succession tot he murdered Adolph of Nassau, of course with a view of obtaining later the imperial crown. Pope Clement was apparently active in favour of Philip's plan; at the same time he made it known to the ecclesiastical electors that the selection of Count Henry of Lützelburg, brother of the Archbishop of Trier, would be pleasing to him. The pope was well aware that further extension of French authority could only reduce still more his own small measure of independence. Though elected, 6 January, 1309, as Henry VII, and soon assured of the papal agreement to his imperial consecration, it was only in 1312 that the new king reached Rome and was consecrated emperor in the church of St. John Lateran by cardinals specially delegated by the pope. Circumstances forced Henry VII to side with the Italian Ghibellines, with the result that in Rome itself he found a powerful Guelph party in possession of St. Peter's and the greater part of the city, actively supported also by King Robert of Naples. The new emperor, after the humiliating failure of his Italian expedition, undertook to compel the Angevin king to recognize the imperial authority, but was crossed by the papal action in defence of King Robert as a vassal of the Roman Church, overlord of the Two Sicilies. On the eve of a new Italian campaign in support of the imperial honour and rights Henry VII died suddenly near Siena, 24 August, 1313. He was the last hope of Dante and his fellow-Ghibellines, for whom at this time the great poet drew up in the "De Monarchiâ" his ideal of good government in Italy through the restoration of the earlier strong empire of German rulers, in whom he saw the ideal overlords of the European world, and even of the pope as a temporal prince.

CLEMENT V AND ENGLAND

Ambassadors of Edward I assisted at the coronation of Clement V. At the request of King Edward, the pope freed him from the obligation of keeping the promises added to the Charter in 1297 and 1300, though the king afterwards took little or no advantage of the papal absolution. Moreover, to satisfy the king, he suspended and called to the papal court (1305) the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Winchelsea, who had previously suffered much for adhering to the side of Boniface VIII, and whom Edward I was now pursuing with unproved charges of treason. (See Clericis Laicos.) It was only in 1307, after the accession of Edward II, that this great churchman, at the royal request, was permitted by Clement to return from Bordeaux to his See of Canterbury, whose ancient right to crown the kings of England he successfully maintained. Clement excommunicated (1306) Robert Bruce of Scotland for his share in the murder of the Red Comyn, and he deprived of their sees Bishops Lambarton and Wishart for their part in the subsequent national rising of the Scots. The Lords and Commons at the Parliament of Carlisle (1307) exhibited a strong anti- papal temper, apropos, among other complaints, of the granting of rich English benefices to foreigners, and though no positive action followed, the later Statutes of Provisors and Præmunire look back to this event as indicative of English temper. (See Gasquet, "The Eve of the Reformation", essay on "Mixed Jurisdiction", and for other items of English interest the "Regestra" of Clement V, and Bliss, "Calendar of Ecclesiastical Documents relating to England", London, 1893 sqq., Rolls series.)

CLEMENT V AND THE CANON LAW

He completed the medieval "Corpus Juris Canonici" by the publication of a collection of papal decretals known as "Clementineæ", or "Liber Clementinarum", sometimes "Liber Septimus" in reference tothe "Liber Sextus" of Boniface VIII. It contains decretals of the latter pope, of Benedict XI, and of Clement himself. Together with the decrees of the Council of Vienne it was promulgated (21 March, 1314) at the papal residence of Monteaux near Carpentras. It follows the method of the "Decretals" of Gregory IX and the "Liber Sextus" of Boniface VIII, i.e. five books with subdivision into titles and chapters. As the pope died (20 April) before this collection had been generally published, its authenticy was doubted by some, wherefore John XXII promulgated it anew, 25 October, 1317, and sent it to the University of Bologna as a genuine collection of papal decretals to be used in the courts and the schools. (Laurin, "Introd. in corpus juris canonici", Freiburg, 1889; cf. Ehrle, "Archiv f. Litteratur und Kirchengesch.", IV, 36 sqq.)

     Clement's official correspondence is found in the nine folio volumes of the Regesta Clementis V (Benedictine ed., Rome, 1885-92); Baluze, Vita paparum Avenionensium (Paris, 1693), I; Raynauld, Ann Eccl., ad ann. 1303-13; Hefele, Conciliengesch. (2d ed.), VI, 393 sqq.; Ehrle, Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. (1867-89); Christophe, Hist. de la papaauté pendant le quatorziéme siécle (Paris, 1853), I; Souchon, Papstwahlen von Bonifaz VIII. bis Urban VI. (1888); Rabanis, Clément V et Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1858); Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861); Renan, Etudes sur la politique de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1899); Wenck, Clement V. und Heinrich VII. (1882); Lacoste, Nouvelles études sur Clément V (Paris, 1896); Berchon, Hist. du Pape Clément V (Paris, 1896); Berchon, Hisat. du Pape Clément V (Bordeaux, 1898), and the exhaustive bibliography in Chevalier, Bio-Bibl. For the literature of the Templars, see Templars . It will suffice to mention here: Lavocat, Le procés des frères de l'ordre du Temple (Paris, 1888); SchottmÜller, Der Untergang des Templer­Ordens (1893); Ch. Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse (Paris, 1901), III (ii), 174-200; Lea, History of the Inquisition (New York, 1887), III, 238-334; Delaville Le Roulx, La suppression des Templiers in Revue des questions historiques (1890), XLVII, 29; and Grange, The Fall of the Knights of The Temple in Dublin Review (1895), 329-46.

Thomas J. Shahan

Pope Clement VI

(Pierre Roger)

Born 1291 in the castle of Maumont, departmentof Corrèze, France, elected pope, 7 May, 1342, at Avignon, where he died 6 December, 1352. At the age of ten he entered the Benedictine monastery of La Chaise-Dieu (Haute- Loire), where he made his religious profession. After devoting some time to study at Paris, he graduated as doctor and became professor in that city. Subsequent to his introduction to Pope John XXII by Cardinal Pierre Grouin de Mortemart, he rapidly rose from one ecclesiastical dignity to another. At first prior of Saint-Baudile at Nimes, then Abbot of Fécamp in Normandy, he became Bishop of Arras and Chancellor of France in 1328, was promoted to the Archbishopric of Sens in 1329, and to that of Rouen the following year. In the latter city a provincial council, which promulgated several disciplinary decrees, was held under his presidency in 1335. He was created cardinal (1338) by Benedict XII, whom he succeeded as pontiff. One of the characteristic traits of his policy as head of the Universal Church was his excessive devotion to the interests of France and those of his relatives. His French sympathies impeded his efforts to restore and maintain peace between England and France, although his mediation led to the conclusion of a short general truce (Malestroit, 1343). Most of the twenty-five cardinals whom he crreated were French, and twelve of them were related to him. The King of France was given permission (1344) to Communicate under both kinds. Clement accepted the senatorial dignity offered him as "Knight Roger" by a Roman delegation, which numbered Petrarch as one of its members. He also granted their request for the celebration of a jubilee every fifty, instead of every hundred, years (Bull "Unigenitus", 1343), but declined their invitation to return to Rome. Greater permanency seemed to be assured to the papal residence abroad by his purchase of the sovereignty of Avignon for 80,000 florins from Joanna of Naples and Provence (9 June, 1348). About the same time he also declared this princess innocent of complicity in the murder of her husband. The pope's success in Roman affairs is evidenced by his confirmation of the ephemeral but then unavoidable rule of Cola di Mienzi (20 May to 15 Dec., 1347). His later condemnation of this arrogant tribune was largely instrumental in bringing about his fall from power. Shortly after these events the jubilee year of 1350 brought an extraordinarily large number of pilgrims to the Eternal City. In his attempt to strengthen the Guelph party in Italy the pope met with failure, and was constrained to cede the city of Bologna to the Archbishop of Milan for a period of twelve years.

Clement took up with ardour the long-standing conflict between the Emperor Louis the Bavarian and the papacy. The former had offended the religious feelings of many of his adherents by arbitrarily annulling the marriage of Marguerite Maultasch, heiress of Tyrol, and John Henry, Prince of Bohemia. The popular discontent was still further intensified when the emperor authorized his own son to marry the same princess. Louis consequently was ready to make the greatest concessions to the pope. In a writing of September, 1343, he acknowledged his unlawful assumption of the imperial title, declared his willingness to annul all his imperial acts and to submit to any papal penalty, but at the same time wished to be recognized as King of the Romans. Clement demanded as further conditions that no law should be enacted in the empire without papal sanction, that the binding force of Louis's promulgated royal decrees should be suspended until confirmation by the Holy See, that he should depose all bishops and abbots named by himself, and waive all claim to the sovereignty of the Papal States, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Louis submitted the pope's demands to the consideration of the German princes, at a time when anti-papal feeling ran very high in Germany, as a result of the separation of the Archbishopric of Prague from the ecclesiastical province of Mainz (30 April, 1344). The princes declared them unacceptable, but also spoke of the necessity of electing a new king in place of Louis, whose rule had been so disastrous to the empire. The pope on 7 April, 1346, deposed Henry of Virneburg, Archbishop of Mainz and an ardent partisan of the reigning emperor, and named the twenty-year-old Gerlach of Nassau to the see. On 13 April of the same year he launched a severe Bull against the emperor, in which he requested the electors to give him a successor. Charles of Luxemburg, the pope's candidate and former pupil, was elected King of Germany (11 July, 1346), by his father, John of Bohemia, by Rudolf of Saxony, and the three ecclesiastical electors. Charles IV (1346- 78) substantially accepted the papal demands, but his authority was not immediately recognized throughout Germany. The country was on the verge of civil war, when Louis the Bavarian suddenly died while engaged in a boar-hunt near Munich (11 October, 1347). The opposition of Günther of Schwartzenburg (d. 14 June, 1349) to Charles was but of short duration. Left without a protector, through the death of Louis, William of Occam and the schismatical Friars Minor now made their submission to the pope. About 1344 Clement VI granted the sovereignty of the Canary Islands to the Castilian Prince Louis de la Cerda, on condition that no other Christian ruler had acquired any right to their possession. The new sovereign, who was accorded the title of Prince of Fortunia, agreed to introduce Christianity into the islands and to pay tribute to the Holy See. He could not, however, take effective possession of the territory, which was not permanently converted at this time, even though a special bishop (the Carmelite Bernard) was named for the islands in 1351. the pope's attempts to reunite the Greeks and Armenians with the Roman Church led to no definite results. The East desired not so much a return to doctrinal unity as assistance against the Turks. A crusade against the latter, which was undertaken in 1344, ended in a barren truce.

More of a temporal prince than an ecclesiastical ruler, Clement was munificent to profusion, a patron of arts and letters, a lover of good cheer, well-appointed banquets and brilliant receptions, to which ladies were freely admitted. The heavy expenses necessitated by such pomp soon exhausted the funds which the economy of Benedict XII had provided for his successor. To open up new sources of revenue, in the absence of the ordinary income from the States of the Church, fresh taxes were imposed and an ever-increasing number of appointments to bishoprics and benefices was reserved to the pope. Such arbitrary proceedings led to resistance in several countries. In 1343 the agents of two cardinals, whom Clement had appointed to offices in England, were driven from that country. Edward III vehemently complained of the exactions of the Avignon Court, and in 1351 was passed the Statute of Provisors, according to which the king reserved the right of presentation in all cases of papal appointments to benefices. The memory of this pope is clouded by his open French partisanship and by the gross nepotism of his reign. Clement VI was nevertheless a protector of the oppressed and a helper of the needy. His courage and charity strikingly appeared at the time of the Great Pestilence, or Black Death, at Avignon (1348-49). While in many places, numerous Jews were massacred by the populace as being the cause of the pestilence, Clement issued Bulls for their protection and afforded them a refuge in his little State. He canonized St. Ivo of Tréguier, Brittany (d. 1303), the advocate of orphans (June, 1347), condemned the Flagellants, and in 1351 courageously defended the Mendicant friars against the accusations of some secular prelates. Several sermons have been preserved of this admittedly learned pope and eloquent speaker. He died after a short illness, and, according to his desire, was interred at La Chaise-Dieu. In 1562 his grave was desecrated and his remains burned by some Huguenots.

      Baluze, Vitæ Paparum Avenion. (Paris, 1693), I, 243- 322, 829-925; Christopher, Hist. de la papauté pendant le XIV ^e siècle (Paris, 1853); HÖfler, Die avignonensichen Päpste (Vienna, 1871); MÜntz, L'argent et le luze à la cour pontif. in Rev. des quest. hist. (Paris, 1879), v, 378; Werunsky, Excerpta ex registris Clementis VI et Innocentii VI (Innsbruck, 1885); Idem, Gesch. Karls IV. (Innsbruck, 1889-92); Desprez, Lettres closes patentes et curiales des papes d'Avignon se rapportant à la France, Clément VI (Paris, 1901); BÖhmer, Fontes rerum germanicarum (Stuttgart, 1843, 1868), I, IV; Klicman, Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia, I, Acta Clementis VI; Gay, Le Pape Clément VI et les affaires d'Orient (Paris, 1904); Kirsch, Die Verwaltung der Annaten unter Klemens VI, in Römische Quartalschrift (1902), 125-51; Hefele- KnÖpfler, Conciliengesch. (Freiburg, 1890), VI, 663-75, passim; Pastor, Gesch. der Päpste (Freiburg, 1901), I, 89-95, passim, tr. Antrobus (London, 1891), I, 85-92; Creighton, Hist. of the Papacy (London, 1892), I, 44-48; BerliÈre, Suppliques de Clèment VI (Paris, 1906), Chevalier, Bio-Bibl. (Paris, 1905), I, 954-55; HergenrÖther- Kirsch, Kirchengesch. (4th ed., 1904), II, 735-37.

N.A. Weber

Pope Clement VII

(Giulio de’ Medici).

Born 1478; died 25 September, 1534. Giulio de' Medici was born a few months after the death of his father, Giuliano, who was slain at Florence in the disturbances which followed the Pazzi conspiracy. Although his parents had not been properly married, they had, it was alleged, been betrothed per sponsalia de presenti, and Giulio, in virtue of a well-known principle of canon law, was subsequently declared legitimate. The youth was educated by his uncle, Lorenzo the Magnificent. He was made a Knight of Rhodes and Grand Prior of Capua, and, upon the election of his cousin Giovanni de' Medici to the papacy as Leo X, he at once became a person of great consequence. On 28 September, 1513, he was made cardinal, and he had the credit of being the prime mover of the papal policy during the whole of Leo's pontificate. He was one of the most favoured candidates in the protracted conclave which resulted in the election of Adrian VI; neither did the Cardinal de' Medici, in spite of his close connection with the luxurious regime of Leo X, altogether lose influence under his austere successor. Giulio, in the words of a modern historian, was "learned, clever, respectable and industrious, though he had little enterprise and less decision" (Armstrong, Charles V., I, 166). After Adrian's death (14 September, 1523) the Cardinal de' Medici was eventually chosen pope, 18 November, 1523, and his election was hailed at Rome with enthusiastic rejoicing. But the temper of the Roman people was only one element in the complex problem which Clement VII had to face. The whole political and religious situation was one of extreme delicacy, and it may be doubted if there was one man in ten thousand who would have succeeded by natural tact and human prudence in guiding the Bark of Peter through such tempestuous waters. Clement was certainly not such a man. He had unfortunately been brought up in all the bad traditions of Italian diplomacy, and over and above this a certain fatal irresolution of character seemed to impel him, when any decision had been arrived at, to hark back upon the course agreed on and to try to make terms with the other side.

The early years of his pontificate were occupied with the negotiations which culminated in the League of Cognac. When Clement was crowned, Francis I and the Emperor Charles V were at war. Charles had supported Clement's candidature and hoped much from his friendship with the Medici, but barely a year had elapsed after his election before the new pope concluded a secret treaty with France. The pitched battle which was fought between Francis and the imperial commanders at Pavia in February, 1525, ending in the defeat and captivity of the French king, put into Charles' hands the means of avenging himself. Still he used his victory with moderation. The terms of the Treaty of Madrid (14 January, 1526) were not really extravagant, but Francis seems to have signed with the deliberate intention of breaking his promises, though confirmed by the most solemn of oaths. That Clement, instead of accepting Charles' overtures, should have made himself a party to the French king's perfidy and should have organized a league with France, Venice, and Florence, signed at Cognac, 22 May, 1526, must certainly have been regarded by the emperor as almost unpardonable provocation. No doubt Clement was moved by genuine patriotism in his distrust of imperial influence in Italy and especially by anxiety for his native Florence. Moreover, he chafed under dictation which seemed to him to threaten the freedom of the Church. But though he probably feared that the bonds might be drawn tighter, it is hard to see that he had at that time any serious ground of complaint. We cannot be much surprised at what followed. Charles' envoys, obtaining no satisfaction from the pope, allied themselves with the disaffected Colonna who had been raiding the papal territory. These last peretended reconciliation until the papal commanders were lulled into a sense of security. Then the Colonna made a sudden attack upon Rome and shut up Clement in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo while their followers plundered the Vatican (20 September, 1526). Charles disavowed the action of the Colonna but took advantage of the situation created by their success. A period of vacillation followed. At one time Clement concluded a truce with the emperor, at another he turned again despairingly to the League, at another, under the encouragement of a slight success, he broke off negotiations with the imperial representatives and resumed active hostilities, and then again, still later, he signed a truce with Charles for eight months, promising the immediate payment of an indemnity of 60,000 ducats.

In the mean time the German mercenaries in the north of Italy were fast being reduced to the last extremities for lack of provisions and pay. On hearing of the indemnity of 60,000 ducats they threatened mutiny, and the imperial commissioners extracted from the pope the payment of 100,000 ducats instead of the sum first agreed upon. But the sacrifice was ineffectual. It seems probable that the Landsknechte, a very large proportion of whom were Lutherans, had really got completely out of hand, and that they practically forced the Constable Bourbon, now in supreme command, to lead them against Rome. On the 5th of May they reached the walls, which, owing to the pope's confidence in the truce he had concluded, were almost undefended. Clement had barely time to take refuge in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and for eight days the "Sack of Rome" continued amid horrors almost unexampled in the history of war. "The Lutherans", says an impartial authority, "rejoiced to burn and to defile what all the world had adored. Churches were desecrated, women, even the religious, violated, ambassadors pillaged, cardinals put to ransom, ecclesiastical dignitaries and ceremonies made a mockery, and the soldiers fought among themselves for the spoil" (Leathes in "Camb. Mod. History", II, 55). It seems probable that Charles V was really not implicated in the horrors which then took place. Still he had no objection against the pope bearing the full consequences of his shifty diplomacy, and he allowed him to remain a virtual prisoner in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo for more than seven months. Clement's pliability had already given offence to the other members of the League, and his appeals were not responded to very warmly. Besides this, he was sorely in need of the imperial support both to make head against the Lutherans in Germany and to reinstate the Medici in the government of Florence from which they had been driven out. The combined effect of these various considerations and of the failure of the French attempts upon Naples was to throw Clement into the emperor's arms. After a sojourn in Orvieto and Viterbo, Clement returned to Rome, and there, before the end of July, 1529, terms favourable to the Holy See were definitely arranged with Charles. The seal was set upon the compact by the meeting of the emperor and the pope at Bologna, where, on 24 February, 1530, Charles was solemnly crowned. By whatever motives the pontiff was swayed, this settlement certainly had the effect of restoring to Italy a much-needed peace.

Meanwhile events, the momentous consequence of which were not then fully foreseen, had been taking place in England. Henry VIII, tired of Queen Catherine, by whom he had no heir to the throne, but only one surviving daughter, Mary, and passionately enamoured of Anne Boleyn, had made known to Wolsey in May, 1527, that he wished to be divorced. He pretended that his conscience was uneasy at the marriage contracted under papal dispensation with his brother's widow. As his first act was to solicit from the Holy See contingently upon the granting of the divorce, a dispensation from the impediment of affinity in the first degree (an impediment which stood between him and any legal marriage with Anne on account of his previous carnal intercourse with Anne's sister Mary), the scruple of conscience cannot have been very sincere. Moreover, as Queen Catherine solemnly swore that the marriage between herself and Henry's elder brother Arthur had never been consummated, there had consequently never been any real affinity between her and Henry but only the impedimentum publicæ honestatis. The king's impatience, however, was such that, without giving his full confidence to Wolsey, he sent his envoy, Knight, at once to Rome to treat with the pope about getting the marriage annulled. Knight found the pope a prisoner in Sant’ Angelo and could do little until he visited Clement, after his escape, at Orvieto. Clement was anxious to gratify Henry, and he did not make much difficulty about the contingent dispensation from affinity, judging, no doubt, that, as it would only take effect when the marriage with Catherine was concelled, it was of no practical consequence. On being pressed, however, to issue a commission to Wolsey to try the divorce case, he made a more determined stand, and Cardinal Pucci, to whom was submitted a draft instrument for the purpose, declared that such a document would reflect discredit upon all concerned. A second mission to Rome organized by Wolsey, and consisting of Gardiner and Foxe, was at first not much more successful. A commission was indeed granted and taken back to England by Foxe, but it was safeguarded in ways which rendered it practically innocuous. The bullying attitude which Gardiner adopted towards the pope seems to have passed all limits of decency, but Wolsey, fearful of losing the royal favour, egged him on to new exertions and implored him to obtain at any cost a "decretal commission". This was an instrument which decided the points of law beforehand, secure from appeal, and left only the issue of fact to be determined in England. Against this Clement seems honestly to have striven, but he at last yielded so far as to issue a secret commission to Cardinal Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio jointly to try the case in England. The commission was to be shown to no one, and was never to leave Compeggio's hands. We do not know its exact terms; but if it followed the drafts prepared in England for the purpose, it pronounced that the Bull of dispensation granted by Julius for the marriage of Henry with his deceased brother's wife must be declared obreptitious and consequently void, if the commissioners found that the motives alleged by Julius were insufficient and contrary to the facts. For example, it had been pretended that the dispensation was necessary to cement the friendship between England and Spain, also that the young Henry himself desired the marriage, etc.

Camapeggio reached England by the end of September, 1528, but the proceedings of the legatine court were at once brought to a standstill by the production of a second dispensation granted by Pope Julius in the form of a Brief. This had a double importance. Clement's commission empowered Wolsey and Campeggio to pronounce upon the sufficiency of the motives alleged in a certain specified document, viz., the Bull; but the Brief was not contemplated by, and lay outside, their commission. Moreover, the Brief did not limit the motives for granting the dispensation to certain specified allegations, but spoke of "aliis causis animam nostram moventibus". The production of the Brief, now commonly admitted to be quite authentic, though the king's party declared it a forgery, arrested the proceedings of the commission for eight months, and in the end, under pressure from Charles V, to whom his Aunt Catherine had vehemently appealed for support as well as to the pope, the cause was revoked to Rome. There can be no doubt that Clement showed much weakness in the concessions he had made to the English demands; but it must also be remembered, first, that in the decision of this point of law, the technical grounds for treating the dispensation as obreptitious were in themselves serious and, secondly, that in committing the honour of the Holy See to Campeggio's keeping, Clement had known that he had to do with a man of exceptionally high principle.

How far the pope was influenced by Charles V in his resistence, it is difficult to say; but it is clear that his own sense of justice disposed him entirely in favour of Queen Catherine. Henry in consequence shifted his ground, and showed how deep was the rift which separated him from the Holy See, by now urging that a marriage with a deceased husband's brother lay beyond the papal powers of dispensation. Clement retaliated by pronouncing censure against those who threatened to have the king's divorce suit decided by an English tribunal, and forbade Henry to proceed to a new marriage before a decision was given in Rome. The king on his side (1531) extorted a vast sum of money from the English clergy upon the pretext that the penalties of præmunire had been incurred by them through their recognition of the papal legate, and soon afterwards he prevailed upon Parliament to prohibit under certain conditions the payment of annates to Rome. Other developments followed. The death of Archbishop Warham (22 August, 1532) allowed Henry to press for the institution of Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, and through the intervention of the King of France this was conceded, the pallium being granted to him by Clement. Almost immediately after his consecration Cranmer proceeded to pronounce judgment upon the divorce, while Henry had previously contracted a secret marriage with Anne Boleyn, which marriage Cranmer, in May, 1533, declared to be valid. Anne Boleyn was consequently crowned on June the 1st. Meanwhile the Commons had forbidden all appeals to Rome and exacted the penalties of præmunire against all who introduced papal Bulls into England. It was only then that Clement at last took the step of launching a sentence of excommunication against the king, declaring at the same time Cranmer's pretended decree of divorce to be invalid and the marriage with Anne Boleyn null and void. The papal nuncio was withdrawn from England and diplomatic relations with Rome broken off. Henry appealed from the pope to a general council, and in January, 1534, the Parliament pressed on further legislation abolishing all ecclesiastical dependence on Rome. But it was only in March, 1534, that the papal tribunal finally pronounced its verdict upon the original issue raised by the king and declared the marriage between Henry and Catherine to be unquestionably valid. Clement has been much blamed for this delay and for his various concessions in the matter of the divorce; indeed he has been accused of losing England to the Catholic Faith on account of the encouragement thus given to Henry, but it is extremely doubtful whether a firmer attitude would have had a more beneficial result. The king was determined to effect his purpose, and Clement had sufficient principle not to yield the one vital point upon which all turned.

With regard to Germany, though Clement never broke away from his friendship with Charles V, which was cemented by the coronation at Bologna in 1530, he never lent to the emperor that cordial co-operation which could alone have coped with a situation the extreme difficulty and danger of which Clement probably never understood. In particular, the pope seems to have had a horror of the idea of convoking a general council, foreseeing, no doubt, grave difficulties with France in any such attempt. Things were not improved when Henry, through his envoy Bonner, who found Clement visiting the French king at Marseilles, lodged his appeal to a future general council on the divorce question.

In the more ecclesiastical aspects of his pontificate Clement was free from reproach. Two Franciscan reforms, that of the Capuchins and that of the Recollects, found in him a sufficiently sympathetic patron. He was genuinely in earnest over the crusade against the Turks, and he gave much encouragement to foreign missions. As a patron of art, he was much hampered by the sack of Rome and the other disastrous events of his pontificate. But he was keenly interested in such matters, and according to Benvenuto Cellini he had excellent taste. By the commission given to the last-named artist for the famous cope-clasp of which we hear so much in the autobiography, he became the founder of Benvenuto's fortunes. (See Cellini, Benvenuto.) Clement also continued to be the patron of Raphael and of Michelangelo, whose great fresco of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel was undertaken by his orders.

In their verdict upon the character of Pope Clement VII almost all historians are agreed. He was an Italian prince, a de’ Medici, and a diplomat first, and a spiritual ruler afterwards. His intelligence was of a high order, though his diplomacy was feeble and irresolute. On the other hand, his private life was free from reproach, and he had many excellent impulses, but despite good intention, all qualities of heroism and gtreatness must emphatically be denied him.

      Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg, 1907), IV, pt. II; Fraiken, Nonciatures de Clément VII (Paris, 1906–); Idem in Mélanges de l'école française de Rome (1906); Gairdner, The New Light on the Divorce of Henry VIII in English Histor. Rev. (1896-1897); Ehses, Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. (Paderborn, 1893); Thurston, The Canon Law of the Divorce in Eng. Histor. Rev. (Oct., 1904); Am. Cath. Quart. (April, 1906); Hemmer in Dict. de théol. cath., in which and in Pastor a fuller bibliography will be found.

Herbert Thurston

Pope Clement VIII

(IPPOLITO ALDOBRANDINI).

Born at Fano, March, 1536, of a distinguished Florentine family; died at Rome, 5 March, 1605. He was elected pope 30 January, 1592, after a stormy conclave graphically described by Ranke (Geschichte der ršmischen PŠpste, 9th ed., II, 150 sqq.). In his youth he made excellent progress in jurisprudence under the direction of his father, an able jurist. Through the stages of consistorial advocate, auditor of the Rota and the Datary, he was advanced in 1585 to the dignity of Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Pancratius and was made grand penitentiary. He won the friendship of the Hapsburgs by his successful efforts, during a legation to Poland, to obtain the release of the imprisoned Archduke Maximilian, the defeated claimant to the Polish throne. During the conclave of 1592 he was the unwilling candidate of the compact minority of cardinals who were determined to deliver the Holy See from the prepotency of Philip II of Spain. His election was greeted with boundless enthusiasm by the Italians and by all who knew his character. He possessed all the qualifications needed in the Vicar of Christ. Blameless in morals from childhood, he had at an early period placed himself under the direction of St. Philip Neri, who for thirty years was his confessor. Upon Clement's elevation to the papacy, the aged saint gave over this important office to Baronius, whom the pope, notwithstanding his reluctance, created a cardinal, and to whom he made his confession every evening. The fervour with which he said his daily Mass filled all present with devotion. His long association with the Apostle of Rome caused him to imbibe the saint's spirit so thoroughly, that in him St. Philip himself might be said to have ascended the papal chair. Though vast political problems clamoured for solution, the pope first turned his attention to the more important spiritual interests of the Church. He made a personal visitation of all the churches and educational and charitable institutions of Rome, everywhere eliminating abuses and enforcing discipline. To him we owe the institution of the Forty Hours' Devotion. He founded at Rome the Collegio Clementino for the education of the sons of the richer classes, and augmented the number of national colleges in Rome by opening the Collegio Scozzese for the training of missionaries to Scotland. The "Bullarium Romanum" contains many important constitutions of Clement, notably one denouncing duelling and one providing for the inviolability of the States of the Church. He issued revised editions of the Vulgate (1598), the Breviary, the Missal, also the "Cæremoniale", and the "Pontificale".

The complicated situation in France presented no insuperable difficulties to two consummate statesmen like Henry of Navarre and Clement VIII. It was clear to Henry that, notwithstanding his victories, he could not peacefully retain the French Crown without adopting the Catholic Faith. He abjured Calvinism 25 July, 1593. It was equally clear to Pope Clement that it was his duty to brave the selfish hostility of Spain by acknowledging the legitimate claims of Henry, as soon as he convinced himself that the latter's conversion was something more than a political manoeuvre. In the autumn of 1595 he solemnly absolved Henry IV, thus putting an end to the thirty years' religious war in France and winning a powerful ally in his struggle to achieve the independence of Italy and of the Holy See. Henry's friendship was of essential importance to the pope two years later, when Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, died childless (27 Oct., 1597), and Pope Clement resolved to bring the stronghold of the Este dynasty under the immediate jurisdiction of the Church. Though Spain and the empire encouraged Alfonso's illegitimate cousin, Cesare d'Este, to withstand the pope, they were deterred from giving him aid by Henry's threats, and the papal army entered Ferrara almost unopposed. In 1598 Pope Clement won still more credit for the papacy by bringing about a definite treaty of peace between Spain and France in the Treaty of Vervins and between France and Savoy. He also lent valuable assistance in men and money to the emperor in his contest with the Turks in Hungary. He was as merciless as Sixtus V in crushing out brigandage and in punishing the lawlessness of the Roman nobility. He did not even spare the youthful patricide Beatrice Cenci, over whom so many tears have been shed. (Bertolotti, Francesco Cenci e la sua famiglia, Florence, 1879.) On 17 Feb., 1600, the apostate Giordano Bruno (q.v.) was burned at the stake on the Piazza dei Fiori. The jubilee of 1600 was a brilliant witness to the glories of the renovated papacy, three million pilgrims visiting the holy places. In 1595 was held the Synod of Brest, in Lithuania, by which a great part of the Ruthenian clergy and people were reunited to Rome (Likowski, Union zu Brest, 1094). Although Clement, in spite of constant fasting, was tortured with gout in feet and hands, his capacity for work was unlimited, and his powerful intellect grasped all the needs of the Church throughout the world. He entered personally into the minutest detail of every subject which came before him, e.g., in the divorce between Henry IV and Margaret of Valois, yet more in the great controversy on grace between the Jesuits and the Dominicans (see BAÑEZ, MOLINA). He was present at all the sessions of the Congregatio de auxiliis (q.v.), but wisely refrained from issuing a final decree on the question. Clement VIII died in his seventieth years after a pontificate of thirteen years. His remains repose in Santa Maria Maggiore, where the Borghesi, who succeed the Aldobrandini in the female line, erected a gorgeous monument to his memory.

Vita Clem. VIII in LABBE AND COSSART, Coll. Conc., XXI, 1323; WADDING, Vita Clem. VIII (Rome, 1723); VON RANKE, The Roman Popes in the Last Four Centuries (1834-37); PELESZ, Gesch. der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom (WŸrzburg, 1881); ROSSI, Di una controversia tra la republica di Venezia e Clem. VIII in Archivio Veneto (1889), fasc. 74; SERRY, Hist. controv. de auxiliis (Antwerp, 1709); RƒGNON, Ba–ez et Molina (Paris, 1883); DE MONTOR, Lives of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1857).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement IX

(GIULIO ROSPIGLIOSI)

Born 28 January, 1600, at Pistoja, of an ancient family originally from Lombardy; elected 20 June, 1667; d. at Rome, 9 December, 1669. He made a brilliant course of studies at the Roman Seminary, and the University of Pisa, where he received the doctorate in his twenty-third year and was made professor of philosophy. His talents and virtuous life brought him rapid promotion in the Roman Court at a period when Tuscan influence under Tuscan pontiffs was everywhere predominant. He enjoyed the special favour of Urban VIII, like himself fond of literature and poetry, and was made titular Archbishop of Tarsus and sent as nuncio to the Spanish Court. He lived in retirement during the pontificate of Innocent X, who disliked the Barberini and their adherents, but was recalled to office by Alexander VII and by him appointed secretary of state and Cardinal-Priest of the Title of San Sisto (1657). Ten years later, one month after the death of Alexander, Cardinal Rospigliosi was elected to the papacy by the unanimous vote of the Sacred College. He was the idol of the Romans, not so much for his erudition and application to business, as for his extreme charity and his affability towards great and small. He increased the goodwill of his subjects by buying off the monopolist who had secured the macinato, or privilege of selling grain, and as his predecessor had collected the money for the purpose, Clement had the decree published in the name of Alexander VII. Two days each week he occupied a confessional in St. Peter's church and heard any one who wished to confess to him. He frequently visited the hospitals, and was lavish in his alms to the poor. In an age of nepotism, he did little or nothing to advance or enrich his family. In his aversion to notoriety, he refused to permit his name to be placed on the buildings erected during his reign. On 15 April, 1668, he declared blessed, Rose of Lima, the first American saint. On 28 April, 1669, he solemnly canonized S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi and St. Peter of Alcantara. He reorganized the Church in Portugal, after that nation had achieved its independence from Spain. By a mild compromise in the affair of French Jansenism, known as the Clementine Peace, (Pax Clementina), he procured a lull in the storm, which, unfortunately, owing to the insincerity of the sectaries, was but temporary. He brought about, as arbiter, the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle between France and Spain, and gravely admonished Louis XIV against the aggressive career upon which he was setting forth. By strict economy he brought the papal finances into good order, and was able to furnish material aid to Venice for the defence of Crete, then besieged by the Turks. Had the European powers listened to his exhortations, that important island would not have been lost to Christendom. The news of its fall, after a gallant resistance of twenty years, hastened the pope's death. He died after a pontificate of two years, five months, and nineteen days. He ordered his remains to be buried under the pavement of Santa Maria Maggiore, with the simple inscription Clementis IX, Cineres, but his successor, Clement X, erected in his honour the sumptuous monument which stands at the right-hand side of the nave, near the door. The death of the beloved pontiff was long lamented by the Romans, who considered him, if not the greatest, at least the most amiable of the popes.

FABRONI, Vita Clem. X, in Vitae Italorum doctrinâ excellentium, II, 1; DE MONTOR, Lives of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II; GƒRIN, Louis XIV et Clément IX dans l'affaire des deux mariages de Marie de Savoie (1666-68) in Rev. des quest. hist. (1880).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement X

(EMILIO ALTIERI).

Born at Rome, 13 July, 1590; elected 29 April, 1670, and died at Rome, 22 July, 1676. Unable to secure the election of any of the prominent candidates, the cardinals finally, after a conclave of four months and twenty days, resorted to the old expedient of electing a cardinal of advanced years; they united upon Cardinal Altieri, an octogenarian, whose long life had been spent in the service of the Church, and whom Clement IX, on the eve of his death, had raised to the dignity of the purple. The reason a prelate of such transcendent merits received the cardinalate so late in life seems to have been that he had waived his claims to the elevation in favour of an older brother. He protested vigorously against this use of the papal robes as a funeral shroud, but at length was persuaded to accept, and out of gratitude to his benefactor, by ten years his junior, he assumed the name of Clement X. The Altieri belonged to the ancient Roman nobility, and since all but one of the male scions had chosen the ecclesiastical career, the pope, in order to save the name from extinction, adopted the Paoluzzi, one of whom he married to Laura Caterina Altieri, the sole heiress of the family.

During previous pontificates the new pope had held important offices and had been entrusted with delicate missions. Urban VIII gave him charge of the works designed to protect the territory of Ravenna from the unruly Po. Innocent X appointed him nuncio to Naples; and he is credited with no slight share in the re-establishment of peace after the stormy days of Masaniello. Under Alexander VII he was made secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Clement IX named him superintendent of the papal exchequer. On his accession to the papacy, he gave to his new kinsman, Cardinal Paoluzzi-Altieri, the uncle of Laura's husband, the office of cardinal nephew, and with advancing years gradually entrusted to him the management of affairs, to such an extent that the biting Romans said he had reserved to himself only the episcopal functions of benedicere et sanctificare, resigning in favour of the cardinal the administrative duties of regere et gubernare. Nevertheless, the Bullarium Romanum contains many evidences of his religious activity, among which may be mentioned the canonization of Sts. Cajetan, Philip Benitius, Francis Borgia, Louis Bertrand, and Rose of Lima; also the beatification of Pope Pius V, John of the Cross, and the Martyrs of Gorcum in Holland. He laboured to preserve the peace of Europe, menaced by the ambition of Louis XIV, and began with that imperious monarch the long struggle concerning the régale, or revenues of vacant dioceses and abbeys. He supported the Poles with strong financial aid in their hard struggle with their Turkish invaders. He decorated the bridge of Sant' Angelo with the ten statues of angels in Carrara marble still to be seen there. To Clement we owe the two beautiful fountains which adorn the Piazza of St. Peter's church near the tribune, where a monument has been erected to his memory.

ARISIO, Memorie sulla vita di Clemente X (Rome, 1863); VON REUMONT, Gaesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, ii, 635-36; CERROTI, Bibliografia Romana (Rome, 1893), 226, 563; NOVAES, Elementi della storia de' romani pontefici da S. Pietro fino a Pio VI (Rome, 1821-25); DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XI

(GIOVANNI FRANCESCO ALBANI).

Born at Urbino, 23 July, 1649; elected 23 November, 1700; died at Rome 19 March, 1721. The Albani (q.v.) were a noble Umbrian family. Under Urban VIII the grandfather of the future pope had held for thirteen years the honourable office of Senator of Rome. An uncle, Annibale Albani, was a distinguished scholar and was Prefect of the Vatican Library. Giovanni Francesco was sent to Rome in his eleventh year to prosecute his studies at the Roman College. He made rapid progress and was known as an author at the age of eighteen, translating from the Greek into elegant Latin. He attracted the notice of the patroness of Roman literati, Queen Christina of Sweden, who before he became of age enrolled him in her exclusive Accademia. With equal ardour and success, he applied himself to the profounder branches, theology and law, and was created doctor of canon and civil law. So brilliant an intellect, joined with stainless morals and piety, secured for him a rapid advancement at the papal court. At the age of twenty-eight he was made a prelate, and governed successively Rieti, Sabina, and Orvieto, everywhere acceptable on account of his reputation for justice and prudence. Recalled to Rome, he was appointed Vicar of St. Peter's, and on the death of Cardinal Slusio succeeded to the important position of Secretary of Papal Briefs, which he held for thirteen years, and for which his command of classical latinity singularly fitted him. On 13 February, 1690, he was created cardinal-deacon and later Cardinal-Priest of the Title of San Silvestro, and was ordained to the priesthood.

The conclave of 1700 would have terminated speedily with the election of Cardinal Mariscotti, had not the veto of France rendered the choice of that able cardinal impossible. After deliberating for forty-six days, the Sacred College united in selecting Cardinal Albani, whose virtues and ability overbalanced the objection that he was only fifty-one years old. Three days were spent in the effort to overcome his reluctance to accept a dignity the heavy burden of which none knew better than the experienced curialist (Galland in Hist. Jahrbuch, 1882, III, 208 sqq.). The period was critical for Europe and the papacy. During the conclave Charles II, the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs, had died childless, leaving his vast dominions a prey to French and Austrian ambition. His will, making Philip of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV, sole heir to the Spanish Empire, was contested by the Emperor Leopold, who claimed Spain for his second son Charles. The late king, before making this will, had consulted Pope Innocent XII, and Cardinal Albani had been one of the three cardinals to whom the pontiff had entrusted the case and who advised him to pronounce secretly in its favour. This was at the time unknown to the emperor, else Austria would have vetoed the election of Albani. The latter was finally persuaded that it was his duty to obey the call from Heaven; on 30 November he was consecrated bishop, and on 8 December solemnly enthroned in the Vatican. The enthusiasm with which his elevation was greeted throughout the world is the best evidence of his worth. Even Protestants received the intelligence with joy and the city of Nuremberg struck a medal in his honour. The sincere Catholic reformers greeted his accession as the death-knell of nepotism; for, though he had many relatives, it was known that he had instigated and written the severe condemnation of that abuse issued by his predecessor. As pontiff, he did not belie his principles. He bestowed the offices of his court upon the most worthy subjects and ordered his brother to keep at a distance and refrain from adopting any new title or interfering in matters of state. In the government of the States of the Church, Clement was a capable administrator. He provided diligently for the needs of his subjects, was extremely charitable to the poor, bettered the condition of the prisons, and secured food for the populace in time of scarcity. He won the good will of artists by prohibiting the exportation of ancient masterpieces, and of scientists by commissioning Bianchini to lay down on the pavement of Sta Maria degli Angioli the meridian of Rome, known as the Clementina.

His capacity for work was prodigious. He slept but little and ate so sparingly that a few pence per day sufficed for his table. Every day he confessed and celebrated Mass. He entered minutely into the details of every measure which came before him, and with his own hand prepared the numerous allocutions, Briefs, and constitutions afterwards collected and published. He also found time to preach his beautiful homilies and was frequently to be seen in the confessional. Though his powerful frame more than once sank under the weight of his labours and cares, he continued to keep rigorously the fasts of the Church, and generally allowed himself but the shortest possible respite from his labours.

In his efforts to establish peace among the powers of Europe and to uphold the rights of the Church, he met with scant success; for the eighteenth century was eminently the age of selfishness and infidelity. One of his first public acts was to protest against the assumption (1701) by the Elector of Brandenburg of the title of King of Prussia. The pope's action, though often derided and misinterpreted, was natural enough, not only because the bestowal of royal titles had always been regarded as the privilege of the Holy See, but also because Prussia belonged by ancient right to the ecclesiastico-military institute known as the Teutonic Order. In the troubles excited by the rivalry of France and the Empire for the Spanish succession, Pope Clement resolved to maintain a neutral attitude; but this was found to be impossible. When, therefore, the Bourbon was crowned in Madrid as Philip V, amid the universal acclamations of the Spaniards, the pope acquiesced and acknowledged the validity of his title. This embittered the morose Emperor Leopold, and the relations between Austria and the Holy See became so strained that the pope did not conceal his satisfaction when the French and Bavarian troops began that march on Vienna which ended so disastrously on the field of Blenheim. Marlborough's victory, followed by Prince Eugene's successful campaign in Piedmont, placed Italy at the mercy of the Austrians. Leopold died in 1705 and was succeeded by his oldest son Joseph, a worthy precursor of Joseph II. A contest immediately began on the question known as Jus primarum precum, involving the right of the crown to appoint to vacant benefices. The victorious Austrians, now masters of Northern Italy, invaded the Papal States, took possession of Piacenza and Parma, annexed Comacchio and besieged Ferrara. Clement at first offered a spirited resistance, but, abandoned by all, could not hope for success, and when a strong detachment of Protestant troops under the command of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel reached Bologna, fearing a repetition of the fearful scenes of 1527, he finally gave way (15 Jan., 1709), acknowledged the Archduke Charles as King of Spain "without detriment to the rights of another", and promised him the investiture of Naples. Though the Bourbon monarchs had done nothing to aid the pope in his unequal struggle, both Louis and Philip became very indignant and retaliated by every means in their power (see Louis XIV). In the negotiations preceding the Peace of Utrecht (1713) the rights of the pope were studiously neglected; his nuncio was not accorded a hearing; his dominions were parcelled out to suit the convenience of either party. Sicily was given to Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, with whom from the first days of his pontificate Clement was involved in quarrels on the subjects of ecclesiastical immunities and appointments to vacant benefices. The new king now undertook to revive the so-called Monarchia Sicula, an ancient but much-disputed and abused privilege of pontifical origin which practically excluded the pope from any authority over the church in Sicily. When Clement answered with bann and interdict, all the clergy, about 3000 in number, who remained loyal to the Holy See were banished the island, and the pope was forced to give them food and shelter. The interdict was not raised till 1718, when Spain regained possession, but the old controversy was repeatedly resumed under the Bourbons. Through the machinations of Cardinal Alberoni, Parma and Piacenza were granted to a Spanish Infante without regard to the papal overlordship. It was some consolation to the much-tried pope that Augustus of Saxony, King of Poland, returned to the Church. Clement laboured hard to restore harmony in Poland, but without success. The Turks had taken advantage of the dissensions among the Christians to invade Europe by land and sea. Clement proclaimed a jubilee, sent money and ships to the assistance of the Venetians, and granted a tithe on all benefices to the Emperor Charles VI. When Prince Eugene won the great battle of Temesvár, which put an end to the Turkish danger, no slight share of the credit was given by the Christian world to the pope and the Holy Rosary. Clement sent the great commander a blessed hat and sword. The fleet which Philip V of Spain had raised at the instigation of the pope, and with subsidies levied on church revenues, was diverted by Alberoni to the conquest of Sardinia; and though Clement showed his indignation by demanding the dismissal of the minister, and beginning a process against him, he had much to do to convince the emperor that he was not privy to the treacherous transaction. He gave a generous hospitality to the exiled son of James II of England, James Edward Stuart, and helped him to obtain the hand of Clementina, John Sobieski's accomplished granddaughter, mother of Charles Edward.

Clement's pastoral vigilance was felt in every corner of the earth. He organized the Church in the Philippine Islands and sent missionaries to every distant spot. He erected Lisbon into a patriarchate, 7 December, 1716. He enriched the Vatican Library with the manuscript treasures gathered at the expense of the pope by Joseph Simeon Assemani in his researches throughout Egypt and Syria. In the unfortunate controversy between the Dominican and the Jesuit missionaries in China concerning the permissibility of certain rites and customs, Clement decided in favour of the former. When the Jansenists provoked a new collision with the Church under the leadership of Quesnel, Pope Clement issued his two memorable Constitutions, "Vineam Domini", 16 July, 1705, and "Unigenitus", 10 September, 1713 (see UNIGENITUS; VINEAM DOMINI; JANSENISM). Clement XI made the feast of the Conception of the B.V.M. a Holy Day of obligation, and canonized Pius V, Andrew of Avellino, Felix of Cantalice, and Catherine of Bologna.

This great and saintly pontiff died appropriately on the feast of St. Joseph, for whom he entertained a particular devotion, and in whose honour he composed the special Office found in the Breviary. His remains rest in St. Peter's. His official acts, letters, and Briefs, also his homilies, were collected and published by his nephew, Cardinal Annibale Albani (2 vols., Rome, 1722-24).

POLIDORI, De vita et rebus gestis Clementis XI libri sex (Urbino, 1724), also in FASSINI, Supplemento to NATALIS ALEXANDER, Historia Ecclesiastica (Bassano, 1778); REBOULET, Histoire de Clément XI (Avignon, 1752); LAFITEAU, Vie de Clément XI (Padua, 1752); BUDER (non-Catholic), Leben und Thaten des klugen und beržhmten Papstes Clementis XI. (Frankfort, 1721); NOVAES, Elementi della storia deÕ sommi pontefici da S. Pietro fino a Pio VI (Rome, 1821-25); LANDAU, Rom, Wien, Neapel wâhrend des spanischen Erbfolgekrieges (Leipzig, 1885); HERGENR…THER-KIRSCH, Kirschengeschichte (4th ed., Freiburg, 1907), III. See also on the Albani, VISCONTI in Famiglie di Roma (I), and VON REUMONT in Beitrâge zur ital. Geschichte, V, 323 sqq., and Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, ii, 642 sqq. Cf. ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XII

(LORENZO CORSINI).

Born at Florence, 7 April, 1652; elected 12 July, 1730; died at Rome 6 February, 1740. The pontificate of the saintly Orsini pope, Benedict XIII, from the standpoint of the spiritual interests of the Church, had left nothing to be desired. He had, however, given over temporal concerns into the hands of rapacious ministers; hence the finances of the Holy See were in bad condition; there was an increasing deficit, and the papal subjects were in a state of exasperation. It was no easy task to select a man who possessed all the qualities demanded by the emergency. After deliberating for four months, the Sacred College united on Cardinal Corsini, the best possible choice, were it not for his seventy-eight years and his failing eyesight.

A Corsini by the father's side and by the mother's a Strozzi, the best blood of Florence coursed through his veins. Innumerable were the members of his house who had risen to high positions in Church and State, but its chief ornament was St. Andrew Corsini, the canonized Bishop of Fiesole. Lorenzo made a brilliant course of studies, first in the Roman College, then at the University of Pisa, where, after five years, he received the degree of Doctor of Laws. Returning to Rome, he applied himself to the practice of law under the able direction of his uncle, Cardinal Neri Corsini, a ma of the highest culture. After the death of his uncle and his father, in 1685, Lorenzo, now thirty-three years old, resigned his right of primogeniture and entered the ecclesiastical state. From Innocent XI he purchased, according to the custom of the time, for 30,000 scudi (dollars) a position of prelatial rank, and devoted his wealth and leisure to the enlargement of the library bequeathed to him by his uncle. In 1691 he was made titular Archbishop of Nicomedia and chosen nuncio to Vienna. He did not proceed to the imperial court, because Leopold advanced the novel claim, which Pope Alexander VIII refused to admit, of selecting a nuncio from a list of three names to be furnished by the pope. In 1696 Corsini was appointed to the arduous office of treasurer-general and governor of Castle Sant' Angelo. His good fortune increased during the pontificate of Clement XI, who employed his talents in affairs demanding tact and prudence. On 17 May, 1706, he was created Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of Santa Susanna, retaining the office of papal treasurer. He was attached to several of the most important congregations and was made protector of a score of religious institutions. He advanced still further under Benedict XIII, who assigned him to the Congregation of the Holy Office and made him prefect of the judicial tribunal known as the Segnatura di Giustizia. He was successively Cardinal-Priest of S. Pietro in Vincoli and Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati.

He had thus held with universal applause all the important offices of the Roman Court, and it is not surprising that his elevation to the papacy filled the Romans with joy. In token of gratitude to his benefactor, Clement XI, and as a pledge that he would make that great pontiff his model, he assumed the title of Clement XII. Unfortunately he lacked the important qualities of youth and physical strength. The infirmities of old age bore heavily upon him. In the second year of his pontificate he became totally blind; in his later years he was compelled to keep his bed, from which he gave audiences and transacted affairs of state. Notwithstanding his physical decrepitude, he displayed a wonderful activity. He demanded restitution of ill-gotten goods from the ministers who had abused the confidence of his predecessor. The chief culprit, Cardinal Coscia, was mulcted in a heavy sum and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Clement surrounded himself with capable officials, and won the affection of his subjects by lightening their burdens, encouraging manufacture and the arts, and infusing a modern spirit into the laws relating to commerce. The public lottery, which had been suppressed by the severe morality of Benedict XIII, was revived by Clement, and poured into his treasury an annual sum amounting to nearly a half million of scudi (dollars), enabling him to undertake the extensive buildings which distinguish his reign. He began the majestic façade of St. John Lateran and built in that basilica the magnificent chapel of St. Andrew Corsini. He restored the Arch of Constantine and built the governmental palace of the Consulta on the quirinal. He purchased from Cardinal Albani for 60,000 scudi the fine collection of statues, inscriptions, etc. with which he adorned the gallery of the Capitol. He paved the streets of Rome and the roads leading from the city, and widened the Corso. He began the great Fontana di Trevi, one of the noted ornaments of Rome.

In order to facilitate the reunion of the Greeks, Clement XII founded at Ullano, in Calabria, the Corsini College for Greek students. With a similar intent he called to Rome Greek-Melchite monks of Mt. Lebanon, and assigned to them the ancient church of Santa Maria in Domnica. He dispatched Joseph Simeon Assemani to the East for the twofold purpose of continuing his search for manuscripts and presiding as legate over a national council of Maronites. We make no attempt to enumerate all the operations which this wonderful blind-stricken old man directed from his bed of sickness. His name is associated in Rome with the foundation and embellishment of institutions of all sorts. The people of Ancona hold him in well-deserved veneration and have erected on the public square a statue in his honour. He gave them a port which excited the envy of Venice, and built a highway that gave them easy access to the interior. He drained the marshes of the Chiana near Lake Trasimeno by leading the waters through a ditch fourteen miles long into the Tiber. He disavowed the arbitrary action of his legate, Cardinal Alberoni, in seizing San Marino, and restored the independence of that miniature republic. His activity in the spiritual concerns of the Church was equally pronounced. His efforts were directed towards raising the prevalent low tone of morality and securing discipline, especially in the cloisters. He issued the first papal decree against the Freemasons (1738). He fostered the new Congregation of the Passionists and gave to his fellow-Tuscan, St. Paul of the Cross, the church and monastery of Sts. John and Paul, with the beautiful garden overlooking the Colosseum. He canonized Sts. Vincent de Paul, John Francis Regis, Catherine Fieschi Adorni, Juliana Falconieri, and approved the cult of St. Gertrude. He proceeded with vigour against the French Jansenists and had the happiness to receive the submission of the Maurists to the Constitution Unigenitus. Through the efforts of his missionaries in Egypt 10,000 Copts, with their patriarch, returned to the unity of the Church. Clement persuaded the Armenian patriarch to remove from the diptychs the anathema against the Council of Chalcedon and St. Leo I. In his dealings with the powers of Europe, he managed by a union of firmness and moderation to preserve or restore harmony; but he was unable to maintain the rights of the Holy See over the Duchies of Parma and Piacenza. It was a consequence of his blindness that he should surround himself with trusted relatives; but he advanced them only as they proved their worth, and did little for his family except to purchase and enlarge the palace built in Trastevere for the Riarii, and now known as the Palazzo Corsini (purchased in 1884 by the Italian Government, and now the seat of the Regia Accademia dei Lincei). In 1754, his nephew, Cardinal Neri Corsini, founded there the famous Corsini Library, which in 1905 included about 70,000 books and pamphlets, 2288 incunabula or works printed in the first fifty or sixty years after the discovery of printing, 2511 manuscripts, and 600 autographs. Retaining his extraordinary faculties and his cheerful resignation to the end, he died in the Quirinal in his eighty-eighth year. His remains were transferred to his magnificent tomb in the Lateran, 20 July, 1742.

FABRONIUS, De vita et rebus gestis Clementis XII (Rome, 1760), also in FASSINI, Supplemento to the Historia Ecclesiastica of NATALIS ALEXANDER (Bassano, 1778); PASSERINI, Genealogia e Storia della famiglia Corsini (Florence, 1858); VON REUMONT, Gesch. d. Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1867), III, iii, 653-55; NOVAES, Elementi della storia de' sommi pontefici (Rome, 1821-25); HERGENR…THER-KIRSCH, Kirchengeschichte (4th ed., Freiburg, 1907) III (bibliography); ARTAUD DE MONTOR, History of the Roman Pontiffs (New York, 1867), II.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Clement XIII

(Carlo della Torre Rezzonico).

Born at Venice, 7 March, 1693; died at Rome, 2 February, 1769. He was educated by the Jesuits at Bologna, took his degrees in law at Padua, and in 1716 was ppointed at Rome referendary of the two departments known as the "Signatura Justitiæ" and the "Signatura Gratiæ". He was made governor of Rieti in 1716, of Fano in 1721, and Auditor of the Rota for Venice in 1725. In 1737 he was made cardinal-deacon, and in 1743 Bishop of Padua, where he distinguished himself by his zeal for the formation and sanctification of his clergy, to promote which he held a synod in 1746, and published a very remarkable pastoral on the priestly state. His personal life was in keeping with his teaching, and the Jansenist Abbé Clément, a grudging witness, tells us that "he was called the saint (by his people), and was an exemplary man who, notwithstanding the immense revenues of his diocese and his private estate, was always without money owing to the lavishness of his alms-deeds, and would give away even his linen". In 1747 he became cardinal-priest, and on 6 July, 1758, he was elected pope to succeed Benedict XIV. It was with tears that he submitted to the will of the electors, for he gauged well the force and direction of the storm which was gathering on the political horizon.

Regalism and Jansenism were the traditional enemies of the Holy See in its government of the Church, but a still more formidable foe was rising into power and using the other two as its instruments. This was the party of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, the "Philosophers" as they liked to call themselves. They were men of talent and highly educated, and by means of these gifts had drawn over to themselves many admirers and adherents from among the ruling classes, with the result that by the time of Clement XIII, they had their representatives in power in the Portugese and in all the five Bourbon Courts. Their enmity was radically against the Christian religion itself, as putting a restraint on their licence of thought and action. In their private correspondence they called it the Infâme (the infamous one), and looked forward to its speedy extinction through the success of their policy; but they felt that in their relations with the public, and especially with the sovereigns, it was necessary to feign some kind of Catholic belief. In planning this war against the Church, they were agreed that the first step must be the destruction of the Jesuits. "When we have destroyed the Jesuits", wrote Voltaire to Helvétius in 1761, "we shall have easy work with the Infâme." And their method was to persuade the sovereigns that the Jesuits were the chief obstacle to their Regalist pretensions, and thereby a danger to the peace of their realms; and to support this view by the diffusion of defamatory literature, likewise by inviting the co-operation of those who, whilst blind to the character of their ulterior ends, stood with them for doctrinal or other reasons in their antipathy to the Society of Jesus. Such was the political situation with which Clement XIII saw himself confronted when he began his pontificate.

PORTUGAL

His attention was called in the first instance to Portugal, where the attack on the Society had already commenced. Joseph I, a weak and voluptuous prince, was a mere puppet in the hands of his minister, Sebastião Carvalho, afterwards Marquis de Pombal, a secret adherent of the Voltairian opinions, and bent on the destruction of the Society. A rebellion of the Indians in the Uruguay Reductions gave him his first opportunity. The cause of the rebellion was obvious, for the natives had been ordered to abandon forthwith their cultivated lands and migrate into the virgin forest. But, as they were under the care of the Jesuit missionaries, Carvalho declared that those must have instigated the natives. Moreover, on 3 September, 1758, Joseph I was shot at, apparently by the injured husband of a lady he had seduced. Pombal held a secret trial in which he pronounced the whole Tavora family guilty, and with them three Jesuit Fathers, against whom the sole evidence was that they had been friends of the Tavoras. Then, on the pretext that all Jesuits thought alike, he imprisoned their superiors, some hundred in number, in his subterranean dungeons, and wrote in the king's name to Rome for permission from the Holy See to punish the guilty clerics. Clement did not see his way to refuse a request backed by the king's assurances that he had good grounds for his charges, but he begged that the accused might have a careful trial, and that the innocent might not be included in a punishment they had not deserved. The pope's letter was written with exquisite courtesy and consideration, but Pombal pronounced it insulting to his master and returned it to the sender. Then he shipped off all the Jesuits from Portugal and its colonies, save the superiors who were still detained in their prisons, and sent them to Civitavecchia, "as a present to the pope", without a penny from their confiscated funds left to them for their maintenance. Clement, however, received them kindly, and provided for their needs. It was to be expected that diplomatic relations would not long continue after these events; they were severed in 1760 by Pombal, who sent back the nuncio, Acciajuoli, and recalled his own ambassador; nor were these relations restored till the next pontificate. Pombal had seen the necessity of supporting his administrative measures by an endeavour to destroy the good name of his victims with the public. For this purpose he caused various defamatory publications to be written, chief among which was the "Brief Relation", in which the American Jesuits were represented as having set up an independent kingdom in South America under their own sovereignty, and of tyrannizing over the Indians, all in the interest of an insatiable ambition and avarice. These libels were spread broadcast, especially through Portugal and Spain, and many bishops from Spain and elsewhere wrote to the pope protesting against charges so improbable in themselves, and so incompatible with their experience of the order in their own jurisdictions. The text of many of their letters and of Clement XIII's approving replies may be seen in the "Appendices" to Père de Ravignan's "Clément XIII et Clément XIV".

FRANCE

It was to be expected that the Society's many enemies in France would be stimulated to follow in the footsteps of Pombal. The attack was opened by the Parlement, which was predominantly Jansenist in its composition, in the spring of 1761. Taking advantage of the financial difficulties into which the French Jesuits had been driven over the affair of Father Lavalette, they proceeded to examine the constitutions of the Society in which they professed to find grave improprieties, and to demand that, if the Jesuits were to remain in the country, these constitutions should be remodelled on the principle of reducing the power of the general and practically substituting for him a commisioner appointed by the Crown. They also drew up a famous document, named the "Extraits des assertions", made up entirely of garbled extracts from Jesuit writers, and tending to show that their method was to establish their own domination by justifying almost every form of crime and licentiousness, particularly tyrannicide. Louis XV, like Joseph I, had a will enervated by lust, but unlike him, was by no means a fool, and had besides an underlying respect for religion. Thus he sought, in the first instance, to save a body of men whom he judged to be innocent, and for that purpose he referred their constitutions to the French bishops assembled at Paris in December, 1761. Forty-five of these bishops reported in favour of the constitutions, and of the Jesuits being left as they were, twenty-seven or more, not then in Paris, sending in their adhesion; but the king was being drawn the other way by his Voltairian statesmen and Madame de Pompadour, and accordingly preferred the advice of the one bishop who sided with the Parlement, Bishop Fitz­James of Soissons. He therefore issued an edict in March, 1762, which allowed the Society to remain in the kingdom, but prescribed some essential changes in their institute with the view of satisfying the Parlement.

Clement XIII intervened in various ways in this crisis of the French Jesuits. He wrote to the king in June, 1761, and again in January, 1762, on the former occasion to implore him to stay the proceedings of his Parlement, on the latter to protest against the scheme of setting a French vicar- general, independent of the general in Rome, over the French provinces; it was likewise on this latter occasion that, whilst blaming their general for the compliance of some of his French subjects, he used the famous words "Sint ut sint aut non sint". To the French bishops who wrote to him protesting against the doings of the Parlement, he replied in words of thankfulness and approval, e.g. to the Bishop of Grenoble on 4 April, 1762, and to the Bishop of Sarlat (with special reference to the "Extraits des assertions") on 14 November. 1764; and to the bishops collectively in June, 1762, exhorting them to use all their influence with the king to induce him to resist his evil counsellors. To the arrét of 2 August, 1762, by which the Parlement suppressed the Society in France, and imposed impossible conditions on any of its members wishing to remain in the country, Clement replied by an Allocution of 3 September, in which he protested against the invasion of the Church's rights, and annulled the arréts of the Parlement against the Society. Finally, when the king, weakly yielding to the pressure of his entourage, suppressed the French provinces by his edict of November, 1764, the Holy Father felt it his duty, besought as he was by so many bishops from all parts, to publish the Bull "Apostolicum", of 9 January, 1765. Its object was to oppose to the current misrepresentations of the Society's institute, spiritual exercises, preaching missions, and theology, a solemn and formal approbation, and to declare that the Church herself was assailed in these condemnations of what she sanctioned in so many ways.

SPAIN

The statesmen who had the ear of Charles III were in regular correspondence with the French Encyclopedists, and had for some years previously been projecting a proscription of the Society on the same lines as in Portugal and France. But this was not known to the public, or to the Jesuits, who believed themselves to have a warm friend in their sovereign. It came then as a surprise to all when, on the night of 2-3 April, 1767, all the Jesuit houses were suddenly surrounded, the inmates arrested and transferred to vehicles ordered to take them to the coast, thence to be shipped off for some unknown destination–forbidden to take anything with them beyond the clothes which they wore. Nor was any other explanation vouchsafed to the outer world save that contained in the king's letter to Clement XIII, dated 31 March. There it was stated that the king had found it necessary to expel all his Jesuit subjects for reasons which he intended to reserve for ever in his royal breast, but that he was sending them all to Civitavecchia that they might be under the pope's care, and he would allow them a maintenance of 100 piastres (i.e. Spanish dollars) a year–a maintenance, however, which would be withdrawn for the whole body, should any one of them venture at any time to write anything in self-defence or in criticism of the motives for the expulsion. The pope wrote back on 16 April a very touching letter in which he declared that this was the cruelest blow of all to his paternal heart, beseeching the king to see that if any were accused they should not be condemned without proper trial, and assuring him that the charges current against the institute and the whole body of its members were misrepresentations due to the malice of the Church's enemies. But nothingh could be extracted from the king, and it is now known that this idea of a royal secret was merely a pretext devised in order to prevent the Holy See from having any say in the matter.

Foreseeing the difficulty of so large an influx of expelled religious into his states, Clement felt compelled to refuse them permission to land, and after various wanderings they lhad to settle down in Corsica, where they were joined by their brethren who had been similarly sent away from Spanish America. When, a year and a half later, they were forced to move again, the pope's compassion overcame his administrative prudence, and he permitted them to take refuge in his territory. On the throne of Naples was seated a son of Charles III, and on that of Parma his nephew. Both were minors, and both had Voltairian ministers through whose instrumentality their policy was directed from Madrid. Accordingly the Jesuits in their dominions were similarly banished, and their banishment drew similar remonstrances from the pope. But in the case of Parma there was a complication, for this state having been for centuries regarded as a fief of the Holy See, the pope had felt himself bound to condemn by his Monitorium of 30 January, 1768, some laws passed by the duke to the detriment of the Church's liberties. The Bourbon Courts thereupon united in demanding the withdrawal of the Monitorium, threatening, if refused to deprive the pope by armed force of his territories of Avignon and the Vanaissin in France, and of Benevento and Montecorto in Italy. Finally, on 18, 20, 22 January, 1769, the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Naples presented to him identical notes demanding the total and entire suppression of the Society of Jesus throughout the world. It was this that killed him. He expired under the shock on the night of 2-3 February. In one sense, no doubt, his pontificate was a failure, and he has been blamed for a lack of foresight which should have made him yield to the exigencies of the times. But in a higher sense it was a splendid success. For he had the insight to see through the plausible pretences of the Church's enemies, and to discern the ultimate ends which they were pursuing. He viewed the course of events ever in the light of faith, and was ever faithful to his trust. He always took up sound positions, and knew how to defend them with language conspicuous for its truth and justice, as well as for its moderation and Christian tenderness. His pontificate, in short, afforded the spectacle of a saint clad in moral strength contending alone against the powers of the world and their physical might; and such a spectacle is an acquisition forever.

There were other aspects under which Clement XIII had to contend with the prevailing errors of Regalism and Jansenism in France, Germany, Holland, Poland, and Venice, but these by comparison were of minor moment. Among the pernicious books condemned by him were the "Histoire du peuple de Dieu" of the Jesuit Berruyer, the "Esprit" of Helvétius, the "Exposition de la doctrine chrétienne" of Mésenguy, the "Encyclopédie" of D'Alembert and Diderot, and the "De Statu Ecclesiæ" of Febronius. He greatly encouraged devotion to the Sacred Heart, and ordered the Preface of the Blessed Trinity to be recited on Sundays.

Barberi and Spetia, Bullarii Romani Continuatio (Rome, 1835); Cordara, Commentarii in DÖllinger, Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte (1882), III; Procés-verbaux du clergé français (1882), VIII; Novaes, Elementi della storia de' sommi pontefici (Rome, 1822), XV; de Montor, Histoire de souverains pontifes romains (Paris, 1851); da Ranke, Die römischen Päpste, III; CrÉtineau- Joly, Clément XIV et les Jésuites (Paris, 1847); Idem, Histoire de la compagnie de Jésus (Paris, 1851), V; Theiner, Histoire du Pontificat de Clément XIV (Paris, 1852); Ravignan, Clément XIII et Clément XIV (Paris, 1854); Ferrer del Rio, Historia del Reinado de Carlos III (Madrid, 1857); DÁvila y Collado, Reinado de Carlos III in CÁnovas de Castillo, Historia General de España (Madrid, 1893); Smith, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus articles in the Month (1902, 1903); Rousseau, Expulsion des Jésuites en Espagne in the Revue des questiones historiques (Jan., 1904).

Sydney Smith

Pope Clement XIV

(Lorenzo–or Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio– Ganganelli).

Born at Sant’ Arcangelo, near Rimini, 31 October, 1705; died at Rome, 22 September, 1774.

At the death of Clement XIII the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check. The great question between Rome and the Bourbon princes was the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In France, Spain, and Portugal the suppression had taken place de facto; the accession of a new pope was made the occasion for insisting on the abolition of the order root and branch, de facto and de jure, in Europe and all over the world.

The conclave assembled 15 February, 1769. Rarely, if ever, has a conclave been the victim of such overweening interference, base intrigues, and unwarranted pressure. The ambassadors of France (d’Aubeterre) and Spain (Azpuru) and the Cardinals de Bernis (France) and Orsini (Naples) led the campaign. The Sacred college, consisting of forty-seven cardinals, was divided into Court cardinals and Zelanti. The latter, favourable to the Jesuits and opposed to the encroaching secular, were in a majority. "It is easy to foresee the difficulties of our negotiations on a stage where more than three-fourths of the actors are against us." Thus wrote Bernis to Choiseul, the minister of Louis XV. The immediate object of the intriguers was to gain over a sufficient number of Zelanti. D’Aubeterre, inspired by Azpuru, urged Bernis to insist that the election of the future pope be made to depend on his written engagement to suppress the Jesuits. The cardinal, however, refused. In a memorandum to Choiseul, dated 12 April, 1769, he says: "To require from the future pope a promise made in writing or before witnesses, to destroy the Jesuits, would be a flagrant violation of the canon law and therefore a blot on the honour of the crowns." The King of Spain (Charles III) was willing to bear the responsibility. D’Aubeterre opined that simony and canon law had no standing against reason, which claimed the abolition of the Society for the peace of the world. Threats were now resorted to; Bernis hinted at a blockade of Rome and popular insurrections to overcome the resistance of the Zelanti. France and Spain, in virtue of their right of veto, excluded twenty-three of the forty-seven cardinals; nine or ten more, on account of their age or for some other reason, were not papabili; only four or five remained eligible. Well might the Sacred College, as Bernis feared it would, protest against violence and separate on the plea of not being free to elect a suitable candidate. But d’Aubeterre was relentless. He wished to intimidate the cardinals. "A pope elected against the wishes of the Courts", he wrote, "will not be acknowledged"; and again, "I think that a pope of that [philosophical] temper, that is without scruples, holding fast to no opinion and consulting only his own interests, might be acceptable to the Courts". The ambassadors threatened to leave Rome unless the conclave surrendered to their dictation. The arrival of the two Spanish cardinals, Solis and La Cerda, added new strength to the Court party. Solis insisted on a written promise to suppress the Jesuits being given by the future pope, but Bernis was not to be gained over to such a breach of the law. Solis, therefore, supported in the conclave by Cardinal Malvazzi and outside by the ambassadors of France and Spain, took the matter into his own hands. He began by sounding Cardinal Ganganelli as to his willingness to give the promise required by the Bourbon princes as an indispensable condition for election. -- Why Ganganelli? This cardinal was the only friar in the Sacred College. Of humble birth (his father had been a surgeon at Sant' Arcangelo), he had received his education from the Jesuits of Rimini and the Piarists of Urbino, and, in 1724, at the age of nineteen, had entered the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis and changed his baptismal name (Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio) for that of Lorenzo. His talents and his virtues had raised him to the dignity of definitor generalis of his order (1741); Benedict XIV made him Consultor of the Holy Office, and Clement XIII gave him the cardinal's hat (1759), at the instance, it is said, of Father Ricci, the General of the Jesuits. During the conclave he endeavoured to please both the Zelanti and the Court party without committing himself to either. At any rate he signed a paper which satisfied Solis. Crétineau-Joly, the historian of the Jesuits, gives its text; the future pope declared "that he recognized in the sovereign pontiff the right to extinguish, with good conscience, the Company of Jesus, provided he observed the canon law; and that it was desirable that the pope should do everything in his power to satisfy the wishes of the Crowns". The original paper is, however, nowhere to be found, but its existence seems established by subsequent events, and also by the testimony of Bernis in letters to Choiseul (28 July, and 20 November, 1769). Ganganelli had thus secured the votes of the Court cardinals; the Zelanti looked upon him as indifferent or even favourable to the Jesuits; d’Aubeterre had always been in his favour as being "a wise and moderate theologian"; and Choiseul had marked him as "very good" on the list of papabili. Bernis, anxious to have his share in the victory of the sovereigns, urged the election. On 18 May, 1769, Ganganelli was elected by forty-six votes out of forty-seven, the forty-seventh being his own which he had given to Cardinal Rezzonico, a nephew of Clement XIII. He took the name of Clement XIV.

The new pope's first Encyclical clearly defined his policy: to keep the peace with Catholic princes in order to secure their support in the war against irreligion. His predecessor had left him a legacy of broils with nearly every Catholic power in Europe. Clement hastened to settle as many as he could by concessions and conciliatory measures. Without revoking the constitution of Clement XIII against he young Duke of Parma's inroads on the rights of the Church, he refrained from urging its execution, and graciously granted him a dispensation to marry his cousin, the Archduchess Amelia, daughter of Maria Theresa of Austria. The King of Spain, soothed by these concessions, withdrew the uncanonical edict which, a year before, he had issued as a counterblast to the pope's proceedings against the infant Duke of Parma, the king's nephew; he also re-established the nuncio's tribunal and condemned some writings against Rome. Portugal had been severed from Rome since 1760; Clement XIV began his attempt at reconciliation by elevating to the Sacred College Paulo de Carvalho, brother of the famous minister Pombal; active negotiations terminated in the revocation, by King Joseph I, of the ordinances of 1760, the origin and cause of the rupture between Portugal and the Holy See. A grievance common to Catholic princes was the yearly publication, on Holy Thursday, of the censures reserved to the pope; Clement abolished this custom in the first Lent of his pontificate. But there remained the ominous question of the Jesuits. The Bourbon princes, though thankful for smaller concessions, would not rest till they had obtained the great object of their machinations, the total suppression of the Society. Although persecuted in France, Spain, Sicily, and Portugal, the Jesuits had still many powerful protectors: the rulers, as well as the public conscience, protected them and their numerous establishments in the ecclesiastical electorates of Germany, in the Palatinate, Bavaria, Silesia, Poland, Switzerland, and the many countries subject to the sceptre of Maria Theresa, not to mention the States of the Church and the foreign missions. The Bourbon princes were moved in their persecution by the spirit of the times, represented in Latin countries by French irreligious philosophism, by Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Erastianism; probably also by the natural desire to receive the papal sanction for their unjust proceedings against the order, for which they stood accused at the bar of the Catholic conscience. The victim of a man's injustice often becomes the object of his hatred; thus only the conduct of Charles III, of Pombal, Tanucci, Aranda, Moniño can be accounted for.

An ever-recurring and almost solitary grievance against the Society was that the Fathers disturbed the peace wherever they were firmly established. The accusation is not unfounded: the Jesuits did indeed disturb the peace of the enemies of the Church, for, in the words of d’Alembert to Frederick II, they were "the grenadiers of the pope's guard". Cardinal de Bernis, now French ambassador in Rome, was instructed by Choiseul to follow the lead of Spain in the renewed campaign against the Jesuits. On the 22nd of July, 1769, he presented to the pope a memorandum in the name of the three ministers of the Bourbon kings, "The three monarchs", it ran, "still believe the destruction of the Jesuits to be useful and necessary; they have already made their request to Your Holiness, and they renew it this day." Clement answered that "he had his conscience and honour to consult"; he asked for a delay. On 30 September he made some vague promises to Louis XV, who was less eager in the fray than Charles III. This latter, bent on the immediate suppression of the order, obtained from Clement XIV, under the strong pressure of Azpuru, the written promise "to submit to His Majesty a scheme for the absolute extinction of the Society" (30 November, 1769). To prove his sincerity the pope now commenced open hostilities against the Jesuits. He refused to see their general, Father Ricci, and gradually removed from his entourage their best friends; his only confidants were two friars of his own order, Buontempo and Francesco; no princes or cardinals surrounded his throne. The Roman people, dissatisfied with this state of things and reduced to starvation by maladministration, openly showed their discontent, but Clement, bound by his promises and caught in the meshes of Bourbon diplomacy, was unable to retrace his steps. The college and seminary of Frascati were taken from the Jesuits and handed over to the bishop of the town, the Cardinal of York. Their Lenten catechisms were prohibited for 1770. A congregation of cardinals hostile to the order visited the Roman College and had the Fathers expelled; the novitiate and the German College were also attacked. The German College won its cause, but the sentence was never executed. The novices and students were sent back to their families. A similar system of persecution was extended to Bologna, Ravenna, Ferrara, Modena, Macerata. Nowhere did the Jesuits offer any resistance; they knew that their efforts were futile. Father Garnier wrote: "You ask me why the Jesuits offer no defence: they can do nothing here. All approaches, direct and indirect, are completely closed, walled up with double walls. Not the most insignificant memorandum can find its way in. There is no one who would undertake to hand it in" (19th Jan., 1773).

On 4 July, 1772, appeared on the scene a new Spanish ambassador, Joseph Moniño, Count of Florida Blanca. At once he made an onslaught on the perplexed pope. He openly threatened him with a schism in Spain and probably in the other Bourbon states, such as had existed in Portugal from 1760 to 1770. On the other hand, he promised the restitution of Avignon and Benvento, still held by France and Naples. Whilst Clement's anger was roused by this latter simoniacal proposal, his good, but feeble, heart could not overcome the fear of a widespread schism. Moniño had conquered. He now ransacked the archives of Rome and Spain to supply Clement with facts justifying the promised suppression. Moniño must be held responsible for the matter of the Brief "Dominus ac Redemptor", i. e. for its facts and provisions; the pope contributed little more to it than the form of his supreme authority. Meanwhile Clement continued to harass the Jesuits of his own dominions, perhaps with a view to preparing the Catholic world for the Brief of suppression, or perhaps hoping by his severity to soothe the anger of Charles III and to stave off the abolition of the whole order. Until the end of 1772 he still found some support against the Bourbons in King Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia and in the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. But Charles Emmanuel died, and Maria Theresa, giving way to the importunate prayers of her son Joseph II and her daughter the Queen of Naples, ceased to plead for the maintenance of the Society. Thus left to himself, or rather to the will of Charles III and the wiles of Moniño, Clement began, in November, 1772, the composition of the Brief of abolition, which took him seven months to finish. It was signed 8 June, 1773; at the same time a congregation of cardinals was appointed to administer the property of the suppressed order. On 21 July the bells of the Gesù rang the opening of the annual novena preceding the feast of St. Ignatius; the pope, hearing them, remarked: "They are not ringing for the saints but for the dead". The Brief of suppression, signed on 8 June, bears the date 21 July, 1773. It was made known at the Gesù to the general (Father Ricci) and his assistants on the evening of 16 August; the following day they were taken first to the English College, then to Castel Sant’ Angelo, where their long trial was commenced. Ricci never saw the end of it. He died in prison, to his last moment protesting his innocence and that of his order. His companions were set free under Pius VI, their judges having found them "not guilty".

The Brief, "Dominus ac Redemptor" opens with the statement that it is the pope's office to secure in the world the unity of mind in the bonds of peace. He must therefore be prepared, for the sake of charity, to uproot and destroy the things most dear to him, whatever pains and bitterness their loss may entail. Often the popes, his predecessors, have made use of their supreme authority for reforming, and even dissolving, religious orders which had become harmful and disturbed the peace of the nations rather than promoted it. Numerous examples are quoted, then the Brief continues: "Our predecessors, in virtue of the plenitude of power which is theirs as Vicars of Christ, have suppressed such orders without allowing them to state their claims or to refute the grave accusations brought against them, or to impugn the motives of the pope." Clement has now to deal with a similar case, that of the Society of Jesus. Having enumerated the principal favours granted it by former popes, he remarks that "the very tenor and terms of the said Apostolic constitutions show that the Society from its earliest days bore the germs of dissensions and jealousies which tore its own members asunder, led them to rise against other religious orders, against the secular clergy and the universities, nay even against the sovereigns who had received them in their states". Then follows a list of the quarrels in which the Jesuits had been engaged, from Sixtus V to Benedict XIV. Clement XIII had hoped to silence their enemies by renewing the approbation of their Institute, "but the Holy See derived no consolation, the Society no help, Christianity no advantage from the Apostolic letters of Clement XIII, of blessed memory, letters which were wrung from him rather than freely given". At the end of this pope's reign "the outcry and the complaints against the Society increasing day by day, the very princes whose piety and hereditary benevolence towards it are favourably known of all nations -- our beloved Sons in Jesus Christ the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and the two Sicilies -- were forced to expel from their kingdoms, states and provinces, all the religious of this Order, well knowing that this extreme measure was the only remedy to such great evils." Now the complete abolition of the order is demanded by the same princes. After long and mature consideration the pope, "compelled by his office, which imposes on him the obligation to procure, maintain, and consolidate with all his power the peace and tranquillity of the Christian people -- persuaded, moreover, that the Society of Jesus is no longer able to produce the abundant fruit and the great good for which it was instituted -- and considering that, as long as this order subsists, it is impossible for the Church to enjoy free and solid peace", resolves to "suppress and abolish" the Society, "to annul and abrogate all and each of its offices, functions, and administrations". The authority of the superiors was transferred to the bishops; minute provisions were made for the maintenance and the employment of the members of the order. The Brief concludes with a prohibition to suspend or impede its execution, to make it the occasion of insulting or attacking anyone, least of all the former Jesuits; finally it enhorts the faithful to live in peace with all men and to love one another.

The one and only motive for the suppression of the Society set forth in this Brief is to restore the peace of the Church by removing one of the contending parties from the battlefield. No blame is laid by the pope on the rules of the order, or the personal conduct of its members, or the orthodoxy of their teaching. Moreover, Father Sydney Smith, S. J. (in "The Month", CII, 62, July 1903), observes: "The fact remains that the condemnation is not pronounced in the straightforward language of direct statement, but is merely insinuated with the aid of dexterous phrasing"; and he contrasts this method of stating grounds for the suppression of the Society with the vigorous and direct language used by former popes in suppressing the Humiliati and other orders. If Clement XIV hoped to stop the storm of unbelief raging against the Bark of Peter by throwing its best oarsmen overboard, he was sorely mistaken. But is unlikely that he entertained such a fallacy. He loved the Jesuits, who had been his first teachers, his trusty advisers, the best defenders of the Church over which he ruled. No personal animosity guided his action; the Jesuits themselves, in agreement with all serious historians, attribute their suppression to Clement's weakness of character, unskilled diplomacy, and that kind of goodness of heart which is more bent on doing what is pleasing than what is right. He was not built to hold his head above the tempest; his hesitations and his struggles were of no avail against the enemies of the order, and his friends found no better excuse for him than that of St. Alphonsus: What could the poor pope do when all the Courts insisted on the suppression? The Jesuit Cordara expresses the same mind: "I think we should not condemn the pontiff who, after so many hesitations, has judged it his duty to suppress the Society of Jesus. I love my order as much as any man, yet, had I been in the pope's place I should probably have acted as he did. The Xompany, founded and maintained for the good of the Church, perished for the same good; it could not have ended more gloriously."

It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i. e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter's or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression. In France it was not published, the Gallican Church, and especially Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, resolutely opposing it as being the pope's personal deed, not supported by the whole Church and therefore not binding on the Church of France. The King of Spain thought the Brief too lenient, for it condemned neither the doctrine, nor the morals, nor the discipline of his victims. The court of Naples forbade its publication under pain of death. Maria Theresa allowed her son Joseph II to seize the property of the Jesuits (some $10,000,000) and then, "reserving her rights", acquiesced in the suppression "for the peace of the Church". Poland resisted a while; the Swiss cantons of Lucerne, Fribourg, and Solothurn never allowed the Fathers to give up their colleges. Two non-Catholic sovereigns, Frederick of Prussia and Catherine of Russia, took the Jesuits under their protection. Whatever may have been their motives, whether it was to spite the pope and the Bourbon Courts or to please their Catholic subjects and preserve for them the services of the best educators, their intervention kept the order alive until its complete restoration in 1804. Frederick persevered in his opposition only for a few years; in 1780 the Brief was promulgated in his dominions. The Jesuits retained possession of all their colleges and of the University of Breslau until 1806 and 1811, but they ranked as secular priests and admitted no more novices. But Catherine II resisted to the end. By her order the bishops of White Russia ignored the Brief of suppression and commanded the Jesuits to continue to live in communities and to go on with their usual work. Clement XIV seems to have approved of their conduct. The empress, in order to set at rest the scruples of the Fathers, engaged in several negotiations with the pope and had her will. In France, too, the persecuted Jesuits were not altogether without friends. Madame Louise de France, daughter of Louis XV, who had entered the Carmelite Order and was, with her sisters, the leader of a band of pious women at the court of her royal father, had worked out a scheme for re-establishing the Jesuits in six provinces under the authority of the bishops. Bernis, however, defeated their good intentions. He obtained from the pope a new Brief, addressed to himself and requesting him to see that the French bishops conformed, each in his diocese, to the Brief "Dominus ac Redemptor".

After the death of Clement XIV it was rumoured that he had retracted the Brief of abolition by a letter of 29 June, 1774. That letter, it was said, had been entrusted to his confessor to be given to the next pope. It was published for the first time in 1789, at Zurich, in P. Ph. Wolf's "Allgemeine Geschichte der Jesuiten". Although Pius VI never protested against this statement, the authenticity of the document in question is not sufficiently established (De la Serviére).

The first and almost the only advantage the pope reaped from his policy of concessions was the restoration to the Holy See of Avignon and Benevento. These provinces had been seized by the Kings of France and Naples when Clement XIII had excommunicated their kinsman the young Duke of Parma (1768). The restitution, following so closely on the suppression of the Jesuits, seemed the price paid for it, although, to save appearances, the duke interceded with the two kings in favour of the pope, and Clement, in the consistory of 17 January, 1774, took occasion from it to load the Bourbon princes with praises they little deserved. The hostile and schismatical manœ;uvres against the Church continued unabated in many Catholic countries. In France a royal commission for the reformation of the religious orders had been at work for several years, notwithstanding the energetic protests of Clement XIII; without the pope's consent it had abolished in 1770 the congregations of Grandmont and of the exempt Benedictines; it had threatened the Premonstratensians, the Trinitarians, and the Minims with the same fate. The pope protested, through his nuncio to Paris, against such abuses of the secular power, but in vain. The Celestines and the Camaldolese were secularized that same year, 1770. The only concessions Louis XV deigned to make was to submit to Clement the general edict for the reformation of the French religious before its publication. This was in 1773. The pope succeeded in obtaining its modification in several points.

In 1768 Genoa had ceded the Island of Corsica to France. At once a conflict arose as to the introduction of "Gallican usages". The pope sent a visitor Apostolic to the island and had the gratification of preventing the adoption of usages in opposition to the Roman practice. Louis XV, however, revenged himself by absolutely refusing to acknowledge the pope's suzerainty over Corsica. Louis XV died in 1774, and one is rather surprised at the eulogy which Clement XIV pronounced in a consistory on "the king's deep love for the Church, and his admirable zeal for the defence of the Catholic religion". He also hoped that the penitent death of the prince had secured his salvation. It may be surmised that he was prompted by a desire to please the king's youngest daughter, Madame Louise de France, Prioress of the Carmelites of Saint­Denis, for whom he had always shown a great affection, attested by numerous favours granted to herself and to her convent.

During Clement XIV's pontificate the chief rulers in German lands were Maria Theresa, of Austria, and Frederick the Great, of Prussia. Frederick, by preserving the Jesuits in his dominions, rendered the Church a good, though perhaps unintended, service. He also authorized the erection of a Catholic church in Berlin; the pope sent a generous contribution and ordered collections for the same purpose to be made in Belgium, the Rhineland, and Austria. Maria Theresa lived up to the title of Regina Apostolica bestowed on her by Clement XIII. But the doctrines of Febronius were prevalent at her court, and more than once she came into conflict with the pope. She refused to suppress a new edition of Febronius, as Clement XIV requested; she lent a willing ear to the "Grievances of the German nation", a scheme of reforms in the Church making it more dependent on the prince than on the pope; she legislated for the religious orders of her dominions without consulting Rome. She maintained her edict on the religious against all the pope's remonstrances, but withdrew her protection from the authors of the "Grievances", the Electors of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier. She also obtained from Clement in 1770 the institution of a Ruthenian bishop for the Ruthenian Catholics of Hungary. In other parts of Germany the pope had to face similar difficulties. The number and wealth of the religious houses, in some instances their uselessness, and occasionally thier disorders, tempted the princes to lay violent and rapacious hands on them. Numerous houses were to be suppressed in Bavaria for the endowment of the new University of Ebersberg, in the Palatinate the reception of new religious was to be stopped; Clement opposed both measures with success. Westphalia is indebted to him for the University of Münster, erected 27 May, 1773.

In Spain Clement approved the Order of the Knights of the Immaculate Conception, instituted by Charles III. The king also desired him to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but France blocked the way. Portugal, whilst it made a certain outward show of goodwill towards Rome, continued to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs and to impose on colleges and seminaries an education more in accord with French philosophism than with the spirit of the Church. At Naples the minster Tanucci hindered the recruitment of religious orders; episcopal acts required the royal placet; the anti- religious press enjoyed high protection. Poland and Russia were another source of deep grief for Clement XIV. Whilst, politically, Poland was preparing its own ruin, the Piarists openly taught the worst philosophism in their schools and refused to have their houses visited by the papal nuncio at Warsaw. King Stanislaus planned the extinction of the religious orders and favoured the Freemasons. The pope was powerless; the few concessions he obtained from Catherine II for the Catholics of her new province were set at naught by that headstrong woman as soon as it suited her politics. Of her own authority she created for the annexed Catholic Ruthenians a new diocese (Mohileff) administered by a bishop (Siestrencewicz) of schismatic temper. Clement XIV had the satisfaction of seeing his nuncio, Caprara, favourably received at the Court of England, and of initiating measures for the emancipation of English Catholics. This turn in the relations between Rome and England was due to the granting of royal honours to the king's brother when he visited Rome in 1772; the same honours being refused to the Pretender. In the East, the Nestorian Patriarch, Mar Simeon, and six of his suffragans, were reunited to Rome. In Rome the pope found little favour with either the Roman patriciate or the Sacred College; none of the many measures he took for the betterment of his people could atone, in their eyes, for his subserviency to the Bourbon Courts and for the suppression of the Jesuits. The last months of his life were embittered by the consciousness of his failures; at times he seemed crushed under the weight of sorrow. On the 10th of September, 1774, he took to his bed, received Extreme Unction on the 21st and died piously on the 22nd of the same month. Many witnesses in the process of canonization of St. Alphonsus of Liguori attested that the saint had been miraculously present at the death-bed of Clement XIV to console and fortify him in his last hour. The doctors, who opened the dead body in presence of many spectators, ascribed death to scorbutic and hæmorrhoidal dispositions of long standing, aggravated by excessive labour and by the habit of provoking artificial perspiration even during the greatest heat. Notwithstanding the doctors' certificate, the "Spanish party" and historical romancers attributed death to poison administered by the Jesuits. The mortal remains of Clement XIV rest in the church of the Twelve Apostles. (See also Society of Jesus.)

      Bullarium Romanum: Clementis XIV epistolæ et brevia, ed. Theiner (Paris, 1852); Cordara, Memoirs on the suppression of the Jesuits, published by DÖllinger in Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen u. Culturgeschichte (Vienna, 1882). -- As to the Lettres intéressantes de Clément XIV, published by the Marchese Caracciolo in 1776, Father Sydney Smith, S. J., says, in a note to one of the articles in The Month (CI, 180, Feb., 1903) referred to below: "There has been much discussion about these letters. The Marchese Caracciolo in his Preface is suspiciously reticent as to the channels through which he obtained them, and gives them in a French translation instead of in the original Italian. On this account, and because it is difficult to believe that some of the contents come from Fra Lorenzo [as Clement XIV was called in religion], many critics have rejected the entire collection as spurious. But da Reutmont thinks (Ganganelli–Papst Clement–seine Briefe und seine Zeit, 1847, Preface 40-42) that it is in substance a genuine collection, though some of the letters are spurious and interpolated. Von Reumont argues very justly that it would hardly be possible to fabricate so many letters, addressed to correspondents most of whom were alive at the time of the publication, and yet impart to them the unity, distinctness, and spontanedity of a living character."– Chretineau­ Joly, Clément XIV et les Jésuites (Paris, 1847); Le Pape Clément XIV, Lettres au P. Theiner; Masson, Le Cardinal de Bernis (Paris, 1884); Rousseau, Expulsion des Jésuites en Espagne (Paris, 1907); De la ServiÉre in Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1907), s. v. Clément XIV; The Dublin Review (1855), XXXIX, 107; Smith, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus, articles in The Month (London, 1902-3), XCIX, C, CI, CII; Ravignan, Clément XIII et Clément XIV (Paris, 1854).

J. Wilhelm

Cæsar Clement

Date of birth uncertain; died at Brussels 28 Aug., 1626, great-nephew of Sir Thomas More's friend, Dr. John Clement. He was a student at Douai when in 1578 the college was removed to Reims, but was shortly sent to the English College, Rome, being admitted 5th September, 1579. He was ordained priest in 1585, but remained in Rome till Oct., 1587. He took the degree of Doctor of Theology in Italy, probably in Rome itself. Though originally destined for the English mission, he never went to England. but held the important positions of Dean of St. Gudule's, Brussels, and vicar-general of the King of Spain's army in Flanders. He was a great benefactor to all English exiles, especially the Augustinian Canonesses of Louvain. In 1612 he, with the Rev. Robert Chambers, was commissioned from Rome to make a visitation of Douai College so as to put an end to the dissatisfaction with the administration there. (See Dodd, "Church Hist. of Eng.", Tierney ed., V, 3 sqq.)

DODD, Church History of England (London, 1737), II, 388; MORRIS, Troubles of our Cath. Forefathers (London, 1872), I, 40, 41, 47, 57; Douay Diaries (London. 1877); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J. (London. 1880), VI, 138; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 497-8; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887). XI, 32; HAMILTON, Chronicles of the English Augustinian Canonesses of Louvain (London, 1904-6).

EDWIN BURTON.

François Clément

A member of the Benedictine Congregation of Saint-Maur and historian; born at Bèze in the department of Côte-d'Or, France, 1714; died at Paris, 29 March, 1793. He made his first studies at the college of the Jesuits at Dijon. Soon after his profession in 1731 his superiors sent him to the monastery of the "Blancs-Manteaux" at Paris to assist in the learned labours of the congregation. To great intellectual gifts Clément added scientific acumen and an unflagging industry which especially fitted him for his task. He knew no fatigue and at night gave barely two or three hours to sleep. He first busied himself with the preparations for volumes XI and XII of the "Histoire littéraire de la France"; these volumes covered the years 1141-1167 and were edited by Clémencet. He then edited, in collaboration with Dom Brial, a fellow-Benedictine, volumes XII and XIII of the work begun by Bouquet in 1738, "Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France" (Paris, 1786), or as the title is generally given "Scriptores rerum gallicarum et francicarum". These volumes contain altogether 439 original documents, accompanied by exhaustive introductions, numerous explanatory remarks, and acute critical notes. Clément's chief work is a revised edition of the chronology first issued by Clémencet in one volume, entitled: "L'art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques". The new edition in which the original work appeared in an entirely changed form was published at Paris in 1770. A third edition (Paris, 1783-1787) embraced three folio volumes; in this the original underwent even greater alterations, and the labour on it cost Clément more than ten years of toil. In contrast to Clémencet he treated his matter objectively, and was influenced neither by prejudices against the Jesuits nor by a blind predilection for the Jansenists. His position met with the approval of scholars and he was made a member of the "Académie des Inscriptions". The work is still of value, and it has been well called "the finest memorial of French learning of the eighteenth century". Clément was engaged in the preparation of a fourth and much enlarged edition when a stroke of apoplexy caused his death. The unfinished work was completed by Viton de Saint-Allais and appeared with additional matter in eighteen volumes (Paris, 1818-19). Viton de Saint-Allais also published from the literary remains of Clément the treatise "L'art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques avant l'ère chrétienne" (Paris, 1820). A work of less importance was one begun by Dom Poncet and edited by Clément, entitled: "Nouveaux éclaircissements sur l'origine et le Pentateuque des Samnaritains" (Paris, 1760). Clément's industry in collecting material is shown by the "Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum Collegii Claramontani, quem excipit catalogus domus professæ Parisiensis, uterque digestus et notis ornatus" (Paris, 1764). For information concerning his letters see the "Revue bénédictine", XII, 508.

DE LAME, Bibliothéque des écrivains de la congrégation de Saint-Maur, 484.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

John Clement

President of the College of Physicians and tutor to St. Thomas More's children, born in Yorkshire about 1500; died 1 July, 1572, in the Blocstrate, St. John's parish, Mechlin. Educated at St. Paul's School and Oxford, St. Thomas More admitted Clement as one of his household to help in the education of his children and to assist him in linguistic studies. In 1519 we find Clement at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, when Wolsey constituted him the Rhetoric Reader in the university; later he became professor of Greek there. About 1526 he married the daughter of a Norfolk gentleman, Margaret Gibbs, who lived and studied with More's family. Applying himself to the study of medicine, he was admitted a Fellow of the College of Physicians (1 Feb., 1528), and was chosen by Henry VIII to attend Wolsey when the latter was dangerously ill at Esher (1529). He was consiliarius of the college from 1529 to 1531, in 1547, and again from 1556 to 1558. He held the office of president in 1544, and that of censor in 1555. After the accession of Edward VI he retired to Louvain to escape religious persecution; so obnoxious was he to the Protestant authorities that he was exempted from the general pardon granted by Edward VI. He returned to England in Mary's reign and practised his profession in Essex, but fled abroad again when Elizabeth came to the throne. Mechlin was his last place of exile. He lies buried in the cathedral church of St. Rumbold in that city. He wrote: "Epigrammatum et aliorum carminum liber"; and also translated from Greek into Latin:

• (1) "The Epistles of St. Gregory Nazianzen";
• (2) "The Homilies of Nicephorus Callistus concerning the Greek Saints";
• (3) "The Epistles of Pope Celestine I to Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria".

DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1737-1742), I, 202; PITS, De Angliœ Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 767; WOOD, Athenœ Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813-1820), I, 401; ROBINSON, Registers of St. Paul's School (London, s. d.), 19; MUNK, College of Physicians (London, 1878), I, 26.

G. E. HIND.

Clementines

(Klementia; Clementine Pseudo- Writings)

Clementines is the name given to the curious religious romance which has come down to us in two forms as composed by Pope St. Clement I. The Greek form is preserved only in two Manuscripts and consists of twenty books of homilies. The Latin form is a translation made from the Greek by Rufinus, who died in 410. It is called the "Recognitions". Two later epitomes of the Homilies exist also, and there is a partial Syriac translation, embracing Recog. i-iii, and Hom. x-xiv, preserved in two British Museum Manuscripts, one of which was written in the year 411. Some fragments are known in Arabic and in Slavonic. The writings are curious rather than admirable, and their main interest lies in the extraordinary theories which they have been made to support during the nineteenth century. The existence of the Clementine Homilies was first made known in 1572 and 1578 by the Jesuit Turrianus, who was a diligent searcher of libraries. He seems to have found a Manuscript of quite a different version from that which we possess. The first edition was that of G. B. Cotelier, 1672, from the Paris Manuscript, in which the 20th book and part of the 19th are wanting. This was re-edited in 1847 by Schwegler. The complete Vatican Manuscript was first used in Dressel's edition, 1853, reprinted in Migne, P. G., II; another edition by Lagarde, 865. The "Recognitions" are found in numerous Manuscripts, for they were very popular in the Middle Ages: indeed the strange history of Clement and his father Faustus, or Faustinianus, is said to have originated the Faust legend (cf. Richardson, "Papers of Amer. Soc. of Ch. Hist.", VI, 1894). The first edition, by Faber Stapulensis, appeared in 1504; Migne, P. G., I, gives a reprint of Gersdorf's edition of 1838. A new and much-needed edition is expected from E. C. Richardson. To the Homilies are prefixed two letters and an account of the reception of one of them. That from Clement to James was translated by Rufinus at an earlier date than the Recognitions (best edition by Fritzsche, 1873).

CONTENTS

Large portions of the Homilies (H.) and Recognitions (R.) are almost word for word the same. Yet larger portions correspond in subject and more or less in treatment. Other parts contained only in one of the two works appear to be referred to or presupposed in the other. The two works are roughly of the same length, and contain the same framework of romance. H. was considered to be the original by Neander, Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and others. Lehmann thought the first three books of R. to be original, and H. for the remainder. Uhlhorn argued that both were recensions of an earlier book, "Preachings of Peter", R. having best preserved the narrative, H. the dogmatic teaching. Cave, Whiston, Rosenmüller, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and others held R. to be the original. It is now almost universally held (after Hort, Harnack, Waitz) that H. and R. are two versions of an original Clementine romance, which was longer than either, and embraced most of the contents of both. Sometimes H., sometimes R., is the more faithful to the archetype. With the eLaborate philosophical and dogmatic discourse which forms the bulk of both works is interwoven a story which, when we consider its date, may he described as positively exciting and romantic. It differs slightly in the two books. The narrative is addressed to St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is related in the person of Clement himself. He begins by detailing his religious questionings, his doubts about immortality, etc. He hears at Rome the preaching of a man of Judea who relates the miracles of Christ. This man (R.) was Barnabas; Clement defends him from the mob, and follows him to Palestine. (In H., evidently the original form, no name is given. Clement sets out for Palestine, but is driven by storms to Alexandria; there he is directed by philosophers to Barnabas, whom he defends from the mob and follows to Cæsarea.) At Cæsarea Clement hears that Peter is there and is about to hold a disputation with Simon Magus. At Peter's 1odging he finds Barnabas, who introduces him. Peter invites Clement to accompany him from city to city, on his way to Rome, in order to hear his discourses. Clement (so R., or Peter himself, H.) sends a report of this to James, from whom Peter has an order to transmit to him accounts of all his teaching.

So far H. i. and R. i., 1-21. Then the two recensions vary. The original order may have been as follows: Clement arises at dawn (H. ii, 1) and finds Peter, who continues to instruct him (2-18, cf. R. ii, 33 and iii, 61). Peter sends for two of his disciples, Nicetas and Aquila, whom he describes as foster-sons of Justa, the Syro-Phœnician woman who was healed by Christ. They had been educated from boyhood by Simon Magus, but had been converted by Zacchæus, another disciple of Peter (19-21). Aquila relates Simon's parentage and his Samaritan origin, and declares that he claims to be greater than the God who created the world (H. ii, 22, R. ii, 7). He had been a disciple of St. John the Baptist, who is represented in H. as the head of a sect of "daily baptizers"; Dositheus succeeded John as head of it, and Simon supplanted Dositheus (23-4). In R. the Baptist has been omitted, and the sect is that of Dositheus. The woman, Helena, whom Simon took about with him, is described (in R. she is called the moon — R. ii, 12, H. ii, 26), and the sham miracles he claimed to do (H. ii, 32, R. ii, 10). He can make himself visible or invisible at will, can pass through rocks as if they were clay, throw himself down from a mountain unhurt, loose himself when bound; he can animate statues, make trees spring up; he can throw himself into the fire without harm, can appear with two faces: "I shall change myself into a sheep or a goat. I shall make a beard to grow upon little boys. I shall ascend by flight into the air, I shall exhibit abundance of gold. I shall make and unmake kings. I shall be worshipped as God, I shall have divine honours publicly assigned to me, so that an image of me shall be set up, and I shall be adored as God." (R. ii, 9.) Next day at noon Zacchæus announces that Simon has put off the promised dispute (H. ii, 35-7, R. ii, 20-1). Peter instructs Clement till evening (H. ii, 38-53). [Probably before this should come a long passage of R. (i, 22-74) in which Peter speaks of Old Testament history (27-41) and then gives an account of the coming of the true Prophet, His rejection, Passion, and Resurrection, and relates the preaching to the Gentiles. The Church at Jerusalem having been governed by James for a week of years, the Apostles return from their travels, and at James's request state what they have accomplished. Caiphas sends to ask if Jesus was the Christ. Here Peter, in a digression, explains why the true Prophet is called Christ and describes the Jewish sects. Then we are told how the Apostles argued before Caiphas, and refuted successively the Sadducees, Samaritans, Scribes, Pharisees, disciples of John, and Caiphas himself. When Peter foretells the destruction of the Temple, the priests are enraged, but Gamaliel quells the tumult, and next day makes a speech. St. James preaches for seven days, and the people are on the point of being baptized, when an enemy (not named, but obviously Simon) excites them against James, who is thrown down the steps of the Temple and left for dead. He is carried to Jericho, with 5000 disciples. On recovering he sends Peter to Cæsarea to refute Simon. He is welcomed by Zacchæus, who relates Simon's doings to him. The author of H. probably thought all this story inconsistent with Acts, and omitted it.] Next morning before dawn Peter arouses his disciples (H. iii, 1, R. ii, 1), who are enumerated (H. ii, 1, R. ii, 1). Peter gives a private preparatory discourse (H.) and then goes out to the public discussion with Simon. Only one day of it is related in H. (iii, 38-57), but the whole matter of the three days is given in R. (ii, 24-70, iii, 12-30, 33-48). But what H. has omitted R. gives largely, though in a different form, in xvi, xvii, xviii, and partly in xix, as another discussion with Simon in Laodicea. It is clear that R. has the original order. Simon, being worsted, flies in the night to Tyre. Peter determines to follow, leaving Zaccæus as bishop at Cæsarea (H. iii, 58-72, R. iii, 63-6). H. adds that Peter remained seven days longer and baptized 10,000 people, sending on Nicetas and Aquila to stay at Tyre with Bernice, daughter of their stepmother, Justa (iii, 73). But R. relates that seven other disciples were sent on, while Clement remained at Cæsarea for three months with Peter, who repeated in private at night the public instructions he gave during the day. All this Clement wrote down and sent to James. In ch. 74 are described the contents of the ten books of these sermons as sent to Jerusalem. H. now makes Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila go on to Tyre. Bernice tells them how Simon has been raising ghosts, infecting the people with diseases, and bringing demons upon them, and has gone to Sidon. Clement has a discussion with Simon's disciple Appion (H. v, 7 — vi, 25). All this is omitted by R., but the same subjects are discussed in R. x, 17-51. Peter goes on northward by Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, and Byblus to Tripolis (H. vii, 5-12). (R. adds Dora and Ptolemais, omitting Byblus, iv, 1.) Peter's discourses to the multitude at Tripolis are detailed in H. viii, ix, x, xi, and in R. (three days only) iv, v, vi, with considerable differences. Clement is baptized (H. xi, 35, R. vi, 15). After a stay of three months he goes through Ortosias to Antaradus (H. xii, 1, R. vii, 1).

At this point Clement recounts his history to the Apostle. He was closely related to the emperor. Soon after his birth his mother had a vision that unless she speedily left Rome with her twin elder sons, she and they would perish miserably. His father therefore sent them with many servants to Athens, but they disappeared, and nothing could be learned of their fate. At last, when Clement was twelve years old, his father himself set out upon the search; and he too was no more heard of (H. xii, 9-11, R. vii, 8-10). In the island of Aradus, opposite the town, Peter finds a miserable beggar woman, who turns out to be Clement's mother. Peter unites them, and heals the woman (H. xii, 12-23, R. vii, 11-23). H. adds a discourse by Peter on philanthropy (25-33). The party now leave Aradus (Mattidia, Clement's mother, journeying with Peter's wife) and go by Balaneæ, Palates, and Gable to Laodicea of Syria. Nicetas and Aquila receive them, and hear Clement's story with amazement; they declare themselves to be Faustus and Faustinianus, the twin sons of Mattidia and brothers of Clement. They had been saved on a fragment of wreck, and some men in a boat had taken them up. They had been beaten and starved, and finally sold at Cæsarea Stratton to Justa, who had educated them as her own sons. Later they had adhered to Simon, but were brought by Zacchæus to Peter. Mattidia is now baptized, and Peter discourses on the rewards given to chastity (H. xii, R. vii, 24-38). Next morning Peter is interrupted at his prayers by an old man, who assures him that prayer is a mistake, since all things are governed by genesis or fate. Peter replies (H. xiv, 1-5 — in R. Nicetas); Aquila and Clement try also to refute him (viii, 5 — ix, 33; cf. H. xv, 1-5), but without success, for the old man had traced the horoscope of himself and his wife, and it caine true. He tells his story. Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila guess that this is their father. Peter asks his name and those of his children. The mother rushes in, and all embrace in floods of tears. Faustus is then converted by a long series of discourses on evil and on mythology (R. x, 1-51, to which correspond H. xx, 1-10 and iv, 7 — vi, 25 — the discussion between Clement and Appion at Tyre. The long discussions with Simon before Faustus in H. xvi, xvii, xviii were in their right place in R. as part of the debate at Cæsarea). Simon is driven away by the threats of Cornelius the Centurion, but first he changes the face of Faustus into his own likeness by smearing it with a magic juice, in hopes that Faustus will be put to death instead of himself. Peter frightens away Simon's disciples by what are simply lies, and he sends Faustus to Antioch to unsay in the person of Simon all the abuse Simon has been pouring on the Apostle there. The people of Antioch in consequence long for Peter's coming, and nearly put the false Simon to death. Peter restores him to his proper form, and thenceforth they all live happily.

A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome. James is addressed as "Bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews, and the Churches everywhere". To him Clement sends a book, "Clement's Epitome of the Preachings of Peter from place to place". Another letter, that of Peter to James, forms an introduction. The Apostle urges that the book of his teachings is not to be committed to anyone before initiation and probation. A note follows the letter, relating that James on receipt of the letter called the elders and read it to them. The book is to be given only to one who is pious, and a teacher, and circumcised, and even then only a part at a time. A form of promise (not an oath, which is unlawful) is prescribed for the reader, by heaven, earth, water, and air, that he will take extraordinary care of the writings and communicate them to no one; he invokes upon himself terrible curses in case he should be unfaithful to this covenant. The most curious passage is: "Even if I should come to acknowledge another God, I now swear by him, whether he exist or not." After the adjuration he shall partake of bread and salt. The elders, on hearing of this solemnity, are terrified, but James pacifies them. The whole of this elaborate mystification is obviously intended to explain how the Clementine writings came to be unknown from Clement's time until the date of their unknown author. Many parallels can be found in modern times; Sir Walter Scott's prefaces — the imaginary Mr. Oiled and his friends — will occur to everyone. Nevertheless a good many modern critics accept the "adjuration" with the utmost gravity as the secret rite of an obscure and very early sect of Judaizers.

DOCTRINE

The central and all-important doctrine of the Clementines is the Unity of God. Though transcendent and unknowable, He is the Creator of the World. Though infinite, He has (according to the Homilies) shape and body, for He is the Archetype of all beauty, and in particular the exemplar after which man was fashioned. He, therefore, even has members, in some eminent way. He is the self-begotten or unbigoted, from whom proceeds His Wisdom like a hand. To His Wisdom He said: "Let us make man", and He is the "Parents" (i. e., Father and Mother) of men.

The Homilies also explain that the elements proceed from God as His Child. From them the Evil One proceeded by an accidental mingling. He is therefore not the Son, nor even to be called brother of the Son. God is infinitely changeable, and can assume all forms at will. The Son proceeds from the most perfect of these modifications of the Divine nature and is conceptional with that modification, but not with the Divine nature itself. The Son is not God, therefore, in the full sense, nor has He all the power of God. He cannot change Himself, though He can be changed at will by God. Of the Holy Ghost we learn nothing definite. The whole of this extraordinary teaching is omitted in R., except the accidental generation of the devil. Instead we find a long passage, R. iii, 2-11, in corrupt and unintelligible Latin, preserved also in the early Syriac Manuscripts. Rufinus in his preface tells us that he omitted it, and in his work on the adulteration of the books of Origin he declares that it is so Origin in doctrine that one seems to hear Enemies himself speaking. It is naturally not found in the best Manuscripts of R., but as preserved in many Manuscripts it is an interpolation by some Arian editor, who seems to have translated it, from the original Greek without always understanding the meaning. The doctrine is, as Rufinus says, the Arianism of the second half of the fourth century. The Son is a creature; the Holy Ghost the creature of the Son.

Of demons much is said. They have great power over the self-indulgent, and are swallowed with food by those who eat too much. Magic is constantly mentioned, and its use reprobated. Idolatry is argued against at length. The immorality of the Greek stories of the gods is ridiculed, and attempts at mystical explanation are refuted. Various virtues are praised: temperance, kindness or philanthropy, chastity in the married state; asceticism of a most rigorous kind is practised by St. Peter. The introduction after the Deluge of eating meat, according to the Book of Genesis, is violently denounced, as having naturally led to cannibalism. The use of meat is, however, not forbidden as a sin, and is probably permitted as a bad, but ineradicable, custom. There is no trace of any Judaistic observance, for though the letter of Peter and the speech of James allow the books to be given to none who is not "a circumcised believer", this is only a part of the mystification, by which the number of adepts is limited as far as possible.

It is now becoming recognized by all critics that the original writings were not intended for the use of baptized Christians of any sect. Most of the latest critics say they are meant for catechumens, and indeed the office of a teacher is highly commended; but it would be more exact to say that the arguments are adapted to the needs of inquiring heathens. Of baptism much is said, but of repentance little. There is little characteristically Christian doctrine to be found; atonement and the sacrifice of the Cross, sin and its penalty, forgiveness, grace, are far to seek. Once the Eucharist is mentioned by name: "Peter broke the Eucharist" (H. xi, 36, R. vi, 15). Christ is always spoken of as "the true Prophet.", as the revealer to men of God, of truth, of the answers to the riddle of life. The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organization. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priest and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined. It was principally this fact which prevented critics of the TUBING School from dating H. and R. earlier than the middle of the second century. The writer was not an Ebonite, since he believes in the pre-existence of the Son, His Incarnation and miraculous conception, while he enjoins no Jewish observances.

Antagonism to St. Paul is commonly asserted to be a characteristic of the Clementines. He is never mentioned, for the supposed date of the dialogues is before his conversion, and the writer is very careful to avoid anachronisms. But his Epistles are regularly used, and the grounds for supposing that Simon always or sometimes represents St. Paul are exceedingly feeble. The latest critics, who still admit that St. Paul is occasionally combated, do not attribute this attitude to the Clementine writer, but only to one of some presumed sources. In fact, there is a clear prophetic reference to St. Paul as the teacher of the nations in R. iii, 61. But it is not safe to admit any polemic against. St. Paul's person in any part of the writings, for the simple reason that there is nowhere any trace of antagonism to his doctrines.

It seems to be universally held that the Clementines are based upon the doctrines of the Book of Elchasai or Helga, which was much used by the Ebonites. The contents of it were said to have been revealed by an angel ninety-six miles high to a holy man Elchasai in the year 100, and this is gravely accepted by Hilgenfeld and Waitz as its real date. It does not however, seem to have been known until it was brought to Rome about the year 220, by a certain Allahabad of Apia. We know its doctrines from the "Philosophers" and from Epiphanies. It taught a second baptism (in running streams with all the clothes on) for the remission of sins, to be accompanied by an adjuration of seven elements; the same process was recommended as a cure for the bite of mad dogs and for similar evils. This is not particularly like the calling of four (not seven) elements to witness a solemn promise by the side of water (without bathing) in the Clementines. For the rest, Elchasai taught magic and astrology, made marriage compulsory, celebrated the Eucharist with bread and water, caused all believers to be circumcised and to live by the Jewish law, held that Christ was born of a human father. All this is contradictory to the Clementines. The only point of resemblance seems to be that the Homilies represent Christ as having been in Adam and Moses, while Elchasai said He had been frequently incarnate in Adam and since, and would be again. The Clementine writer is fond of pairs of antitheses, or syzygia, such as Christ and the tempter, Peter and Simon. But these have no connexion with any Gnostic or Marcionite antitheses, nor is there any trace of the Gnostic genealogies. He is simply airing his own pseudo-philosophic speculations. Polemic against Marcionism has often been pointed out. But the denial of two Gods, a transcendental God and a Creator, is directed against popular neo-Platonism, and not against Marcion. Again, replies are made to objections to Christianity drawn from immorality or anthropomorphism in the Old Testament, but these objections are not Marcionite. The writer is fond of citing sayings of Christ not found in Scripture. His Scripture text has been analyzed by Hilgenfeld, Waltz, and others. He never cites a book of the N. T. by name, which would be an anachronism at the date he has chosen.

EARLY USE OF THE CLEMENTINES

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the "Philocalia" of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian "Opus imperfectum in Matt." (See Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 436.) Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxviii (a.d. 325) he mentions some short writings and adds: "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients." These dialogues need not have been the complete romance, but may have been an earlier draft of part of it. Next we find the Clementines used by Ebionites c. 360 (Epiphanius, Hær., xxx, 15). They are quoted as the "Periodi" by St. Jerome in 387 and 392 (On Gal., i, 18, and "Adv. Jovin.", i, 26). Two forms of the "Recognitions" were known to Rufinus, and one of them was translated by him c. 400. About 408 St. Paulinus of Nola, in a letter to Rufinus, mentions having himself translated a part or all, perhaps as an exercise in Greek. The "Opus imperfectum" above mentioned has five quotations. It is apparently by an Arian of the beginning of the fifth century, possibly by a bishop called Maximus. The Syriac translation was made before 411, the date of one of the Manuscripts. After this time citations occur in many Byzantine writers, and from the commendation given by Nicephorus Callisti (fourteenth century) we may gather that an orthodox version was current. In the West the translation by Rufinus became very popular, and citations are found in Syriac and Arabic writings.

MODERN THEORIES OF ORIGIN AND DATE

Baur, the founder of the "Tübingen School" of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the fourth century. This Judæo-Christian sect at that date rejected St. Paul as an apostate. It was assumed that this fourth-century opinion represented the Christianity of the Twelve Apostles; Paulinism was originally a heresy, and a schism from the Jewish Christianity of James and Peter and the rest; Marcion was a leader of the Pauline sect in its survival in the second century, using only the Pauline Gospel, St. Luke (in its original form), and the Epistles of St. Paul (without the Pastoral Epistles). The Clementine literature had its first origin in the Apostolic Age, and belonged to the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church. It is directed wholly against St. Paul and his sect. Simon Magus never existed; it is a nickname for St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles, compiled in the second century, have borrowed their mention of Simon from the earliest form of the Clementines. Catholicism under the presidency of Rome was the result of the adjustment between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Church in the second half of the second century. The Fourth Gospel is a monument of this reconciliation, in which Rome took a leading part, having invented the fiction that both Peter and Paul were the founders of her Church, both having been martyred at Rome, and on the same day, in perfect union.

Throughout the middle of the nineteenth century this theory, in many forms, was dominant in Germany. The demonstration, mainly by English scholars, of the impossibility of the late dates ascribed to the New Testament documents (four Epistles of St. Paul and the Apocalypse were the only documents generally admitted as being of early date), and the proofs of the authenticity of the Apostolic Fathers and of the use of St. John's Gospel by Justin, Papias, and Ignatius gradually brought Baur's theories into discredit. Of the original school, Adolf Hilgenfeld may be considered the last survivor (died 1907). He was induced many years ago to admit that Simon Magus was a real personage, though he persists that in the Clementines he is meant for St. Paul. To a priori critics it counts as nothing that Simon holds no Pauline doctrine and that the author shows no signs of being a Judæo-Christian. In 1847 Hilgenfeld dated the original nucleus (Preachings of Peter) soon after the Jewish war of 70; successive revisions of it were anti-Basilidian, anti-Valentinian, and anti-Marcionite respectively. Baur placed the completed form, H., soon after the middle of the second century, and Schliemann (1844) agreed, placing R., as a revision, between 211 and 230. This writer sums up the opinions of his predecessors thus:

• R. 2nd century: Sixtus Senensis, Blondellus, Nourri, Cotelerius, Natalis Alexander, Cave, Oudin, Heinsius, Rosenmüller, Flügge, Gieseler, Tholuck, Bretschneider, Engelhardt, Gfrörer.
• R. 2nd or 3rd century: Schröck, Stark, Lumper, Krabbe, Locherer, Gersdorf.
• R. 3rd century: Strunzius (on Bardesanes, 1710), Weismann (17l8), Mosheim, Kleuker, Schmidt (Kirchengesch.).
• R. 4th century: Corrodi, Lentz (Dogmengesch.).
• H. 2nd century (beginning): Credner, Bretschneider, Kern, Rothe.
• H. 2nd century: Clericus, Beausobre, Flügge, Münscher, Hoffmann, Döllinger, Hilgers; (middle of 2nd) Hase.
• H. end of 2nd century: Schröck, Cölln, Gieseler (3rd ed.), Schenkel, Gfrörer, Lücke.
• H. 3rd century: Mill, Mosheim, Gallandi, Gieseler (2nd ed.).
• H. 2nd or 3rd century: Neander, Krabbe, Baur, Ritter, Paniel, Dähne.
• H. 4th century: Lentz.

Uhlhorn in his valuable monograph (1854) placed the original document, or Grundsrhrift, in East Syria. after 150; H. in the same region after 160; R. in Rome after 170. Lehmann (1869) put the source (Preaching of Peter) very early, H. and R. i-ii before 160, the rest of R. before 170. In England Salmon set R. about 200. H. about 218. Dr. Bigg makes H. the original, Syrian, first half of second century, R. being a recasting in an orthodox sense. H. was originally written by a Catholic, and the heretical parts belong to a later recension. Dr. Headlam, in a very interesting article, considers that the original form was rather a collection of works than a single book, yet all products of one design and plan, coming from one writer, of a curious, versatile, unequally developed mind. While accepting the dependence on the Book of Elchasai, Dr. Headlam sees no antagonism to St. Paul, and declares that the writer is quite ignorant of Judaism. Under the impression that the original work was known to Origen, he is obliged to date it at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third. In 1883 Bestmann made the Clementines the basis of an unsuccessful theory which, as Harnack puts it. "claimed for Jewish Christianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship. and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be divested of a few Jewish husks" (Hist. of Dogma, I, 310).

Another popular theory based upon the Clementines has been that it was the Epistle of Clement to James which originated the notion that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. This has been asserted by no lesser authorities than Lightfoot, Salmon, and Bright, and it has been made an important point in the controversial work of the Rev. F. W. Puller, "Primitive Saints and the Roman See". It is acknowledged that in St. Cyprian's time (c. 250) it was universally believed that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he was looked upon as the type and origin of episcopacy. Modern criticism has long since put the letter of Clement too tate to allow this theory to be tenable, and now Waitz places it after 220, and Harnack after 260. We shall presently see that it probably belongs to the fourth century.

The "Old Catholic" Professor Langen in 1890 elaborated a new theory. Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, he says, that city was the centre of the Christian Church. A new pivot was then needed. The Church of the capital made a bold bid for the vacant post of pre-eminence. Shortly after 135 was published the original form of the Clementine romance. It was a Roman forgery, claiming for the Church of Peter the succession to a part of the headship of the Church of James. James indeed had been "bishop of bishops", and Peter's successor could not claim to be more than Peter was among the Apostles, primus inter pares. The Roman attempt was eventually successful, but not without a struggle. Cæsarea, the metropolis of Palestine. also claimed the succession to Jerusalem. The monument of this claim is H., a recension of the Roman work made at Cæsarea before the end of the second century in order to fight Rome with her own weapons. (The intention must be admitted to have been closely veiled.) In the beginning of the third century the metropolis of the Orient, Antioch, produced a new edition, R., claiming for that city the vacant primacy. Langen's view has found no adherents.

Dr. Hort complained that the Clementines have left no traces in the eighty years between Origen and Eusebius, but he felt obliged to date them before Origen, and placed the original c. 200 as the work of a Syrian Heixaïte. Harnack, in his "History of Dogma", saw that they had no influence in the third century; he dated R. and H. not earlier than the first half of that century, or even a few decades later. All the foregoing writers presupposed that the Clementines were known to Origen. Since this has been shown to be not proven (1903), Waitz's elaborate study has appeared (1904), but his view was evidently formed earlier. His view is that H. is the work of an Aramæan Christian after 325 (for he uses the word homoousios) and earlier than 411 (the Syriac Manuscript). R. probably after 350, also in the East. But the Grundschrift, or archetype, was written at Rome, perhaps under the syncretistic system of cult in favour at the court of Alexander Severus, probably between 220 and 250. Harnack, in his "Chronologie" (II), gives 260 or later as the date, but he thinks H. and R. may he ante-Nicene. Waitz supposes two earlier sources to have been employed in the romance, the "Preachings of Peter" (origin in first century, but used in a later anti-Marcionite recension) and the "Acts of Peter" (written in a Catholic circle at Antioch c. 210). Harnack accepts the existence of these sources, but thinks neither was earlier than about 200. They are carefully to be distinguished from the well-known second-century works, the "Preaching of Peter" and "Acts of Peter", of which fragments still exist. These are quoted by many early writers, whereas the supposed sources of the Clementines are otherwise unknown and therefore probably never existed at all. A long passage from Pseudo-Bardesanes "De Fato" occurs in R. ix, 19 sqq. Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, and some earlier critics characteristically held that Bardesanes used the Clementines. Merx, Waitz, and most others hold that R. cites Bardesanes directly. Nau and Harnack are certainly right, that R. has borrowed the citation at second hand from Eusebius (Præp. Evang., vi, 10, 11-48, a.d. 313).

PROBABLE DATE OF THE CLEMENTINES

We now know that the Clementine writer need not have lived before Origen. Let us add that there is no reason to think he was a Judæo-Christian, an Elchasaïte, or anti-Pauline, or anti-Marcionite, that he employed ancient sources, that he belonged to a secretive sect. We are free, then, to look out for indications of date without prejudice.

R. is certainly post-Nicene, as Waitz has shown. But we may go further. The curious passage R. iii. 2-11, which Rufinus omitted, and in which he seemed to hear Eunomius himself speaking, gives in fact the doctrine of Eunomius so exactly that it frequently almost cites the Apologeticus" (c. 362-3) of that heretic word for word. (The Eunomian doctrine is that the essence of God is to be unborn, consequently the Son Who is begotten is not God. He is a creature, the first-born of all creation and the Image of God. The Holy Ghost is the creature of the Son.) The agreement with Eunomius's ekthesis pisteos of 381-3 is less close. As the Eunomian passage was found by Rufinus in both the recensions of Clement known to him, we may suppose that the interpolation was made in the original work by a Eunomian about 365-70, before the abridgment R. was made about 370-80. (The word archiepiscopus used of St. James suggests the end of the fourth century. It occurs in the middle of that century in some Meletian documents cited by Athanasius, and then not till the Council of Ephesus, 431.)

H. has also a disquisition on the generation of the Son (xvi, 15-18, and xx, 7-8). The writer calls God autopator and autogennetos, and both Mother and Father of men. His idea of a changeable God and an unchangeable Son projected from the best modification of God has been mentioned above. This ingenious doctrine enables the writer to accept the words of the Nicene definition, while denying their sense. The Son may be called God, for so may men be, but not in the strict sense. He is homoousios to Patri, begotten ek tes ousias, He is not treptos or alloiotos. Apparently He is not ktistos, nor was there a time when He was not, though this is not quite distinctly enunciated. The writer is clearly an Arian who manages to accept the formula of Nicea by an acrobatic feat, in order to save himself. The date is therefore probably within the reign of Constantine (died 337), while the great council was still imposed on all by the emperor — say, about 330.

But this is not the date of H., but of the original behind both H. and R.; for it is clear that the Eunomian interpolator of R. attacks the doctrine we find in H. He ridicules autopator and autogennetos, he declares God to be unchangeable, and the Son to be created, not begotten from the Father's essence and consubstantial. God is not masculo-femina. It is clear that the interpolator had before him the doctrine of H. in a yet clearer form, and that he substituted his own view for it (R. iii, 2-11). But it is remarkable that he retained one integral part of H.'s theory, viz., the origin of the Evil One from an accidental mixture of elements, for Rufinus tells us (De Adult. libr. Origenis) that he found this doctrine in R. and omitted it. The date of the original is therefore fixed as after Nicæa, 325, probably c. 330; that of H. may be anywhere in the second half of the fourth century. The Eunomian interpolator is about 365-70, and the compilation of R. about 370-80.

The original author shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phœnician coast from Cæsarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the "Præp. Evang." of Eusebius of Cæsarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published — presumably in his own region; these were probably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epiphanius, who found the romance among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the "Apostolical Constitutions", compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the "Opus imperfectum" cited it freely. It was interpolated by a Eunomian about 365-70. All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far front Cæsarea.

The author, though an Arian, probably belonged nominally to the Catholic Church. He wrote for the heathens of his day, and observed the stiff and often merely formal disciplina arcani which the fourth century enforced. Atonement, grace, sacraments are omitted for this cause only. "The true Prophet" is not a name for Christ used by Christians, but the office of Christ which the author puts forward towards the pagan world. He shows Peter keeping the evening agape and Eucharist secret from Clement when unbaptized; it was no doubt a Eucharist of bread and vine, not of bread and salt.

The great pagan antagonist of the third century was the neo-Platonic philosopher, Porphyry; but under Constantine his disciple Iamblichus was the chief restorer and defender of the old gods, and his system of defence is that which we find made the official religion by Julian (361-3). Consequently, it is not astonishing to find that Simon and his disciples represent not St. Paul, but Iamblichus. The doctrines and practices repelled are the theurgy and magic, astrology and mantic, absurd miracles and claims to union with the Divinity, which characterized the debased neo-Platonism of 320-30. It is not against Marcion but against Plato that Pseudo-Clement teaches the supremacy of the Creator of all. He defends the Old Testament against the school of Porphyry, and when he declares it to be interpolated, he is using Porphyry's own higher criticism in a clumsy way. The elaborate discussion of ancient history, the ridicule cast on the obscene mythology of the Greeks, and the philosophical explanations of a higher meaning are also against Porphyry. The refutation of the grossest idolatry is against Iamblichus.

It is perhaps mere accident that we hear nothing of the Clementines from 330 till 360. But about 360- 410 they are interpolated, they are revised and abridged in H., yet more revised and abridged in R., translated into Latin, translated into Syriac, and frequently cited. It seems, therefore, that it was the policy of Julian which drew them from obscurity. They were useful weapons against the momentary resurrection of polytheism, mythology, theurgy, and idolatry.

The principal editions have been mentioned above. The literature is so enormous that a selection from it must suffice. Somewhat fuller lists will be found in HARNACK, Chronologie, II, in BARDENHEWER, Patrologie and Geschichte der kirchlichen Litteratur and in CHEVALIER, Répertoire. — SCHLIEMANN, Die Clementinen (1844); HILGENFELD, Die Clem. Recogn. und Hom. nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt (Jena, 1848); Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins, der Clem. Hom. und Marcions (Halle, 1850); UHLHORN, Die Hom. und Recogn. des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854); LEHMANN, Die clementinischen Schriften (Gotha, 1869) LIPSIUS, Quellen der römischen Petrussage (1872) and Apokr. Apostelgeschichte (1887), II; SALMON in Dict. Chr. Biog. (1877); LANGEN, Die Clemensromane (Gotha, 1890): FUNK in Kirchenlex. (1884); BIGG, The Clementine Homilies in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1890), II; BUSSELL, The Purpose of the World-Process and the Problem of Evil in the Clementine and Lactantian Writings in Studia Biblica (1806), IV; W. C[HAWNER], Index of noteworthy words and phrases found in the Clementine writings in Lightfoot Fund Public. (London, 1893); HORT, Clementine Recognitions (lectures delivered in 1884; pub. London, 1901); MEYBOOM De Clemens Roman (1902); HEADLAM, The Clementine Literature in Journ. Theol. Stud. (1903), III, 41; CHAPMAN, Origer and Pseudo-Clement in Journ. Theol. Stud., III, 436; HILGENFELD, Origenes und Pseudo-Clemens in Zeitschr. für Wiss. Theol. (1903), XLVI, 342; PREUSCHEN In HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur (1893), I, 212; and II, Chronologie, 518; WAITZ, Die Pseudoclementinen in Texte und Unters., New Series, X, 4; CHAPMAN, The Date of the Clementines in Zeitschr. für Neu-Test. Wiss. (1908). An English translation of the Recognitions, by the REV. T. SMITH, D. D., will be found in the Ante-Nicene Library. III, and of the Homilies, ibid., XVII (Edinburgh, 1871-2).

JOHN CHAPMAN.

Blessed Clement Mary Hofbauer

(JOHN DVORÁK)

The second founder of the Redemptorist Congregation, called "the Apostle of Vienna", born at Tasswitz in Moravia, 26 December, 1751; died at Vienna 15 March, 1821. The family name of Dvorak was better known by its German equivalent, Hofbauer. The youngest of twelve children, and son of a grazier and butcher, he was six years old when his father died. His great desire was to become a priest, but his family being unable to give him the necessary education he became a baker's assistant, devoting all his spare time to study. He was a servant in the Premonstratensian monastery of Bruck from 1771 to 1775, and then lived for some time as a hermit. When the Emperor Joseph II abolished hermitages he went to Vienna, where he worked once more as a baker. After two pilgrimages to Rome he again tried a hermit's life (1782-3), this time under the protection of Barnaba Chiaramonti, Bishop of Tivoli, afterwards Pope Pius VII, taking the name of Clement, by which he was ever afterwards known. He once more returned to Vienna, where at length by the generosity of benefactors he was enabled to go to the university and complete his studies; In 1784 he made a third pilgrimage on foot to Rome with a friend, Thaddäus Hübl, and the two were received into the Redemptorist novitiate at San Giuliano on the Esquiline. After a shortened probation they were professed on 19 March, 1785, and ordained priests a few days later. They were sent, towards the end of the same year, to found a house north of the Alps, St. Alphonsus. who was still alive, prophesying their success. It being impossible under Joseph II to found a house in Vienna, Clement and Thaddäus turned to Warsaw, where King Stanislaus Poniatowski, at the nuncio's request, placed St. Benno's, the German national church, at their disposal. Here, in 1795, they saw the end of Polish independence. The labours of Clement and his companions in Warsaw from 1786 to 1808 are wellnigh incredible. In addition to St. Benno's, another large church was reserved for them, where sermons were preached in French, and there were daily classes of instruction for Protestants and Jews. Besides this Clement founded an orphanage and a school for boys. His chief helper, Thaddäus Hübl, died in 1807; In the next year, on orders from Paris, the house at Warsaw and three other houses which Clement had founded were suppressed, anti the Redemptorists were expelled from the Grand Duchy. Clement with one companion went to Vienna, where for the last twelve years of his life he acted as chaplain and director at an Ursuline convent. During these years he exercised a veritable apostolate among all classes in the capital from the Emperor Francis downward. Unable to found a regular house of his congregation, which was however established, as he had predicted, almost immediately after his death, he devoted himself in a special way to the conversion and training of young men. "I know but three men of superhuman energy", his friend Werner had said, "Napoleon, Goethe, and Clement Hofbauer." "Religion in Austria", said Pius VII, "has lost its chief support." Indeed it was to Clement Hofbauer perhaps more than to any single individual that the extinction of Josephinism was due. He was beatified by Leo XIII, 29 January, 1888; (See AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY, II, 129.)

His life in German by HARINGER, translated into English by LADY HERBERT (New York, 1883). Another life by O. R. VASSALL PHILLIPS (New York, 1893); BERTHE, Saint Alphonse de Liguori (Paris, 1900), tr. Life of St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Dublin, 1905).

J. MAGNIER.

Clement of Alexandria

(Properly TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS, but known in church history by the former designation to distinguish him from Clement of Rome).

Date of birth unknown; died about the year 215. St. Clement was an early Greek theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. Athens is given as the starting-point of his journeyings, and was probably his birthplace. He became a convert to the Faith and travelled from place to place in search of higher instruction, attaching himself successively to different masters: to a Greek of Ionia, to another of Magna Graecia, to a third of Coele-Syria, after all of whom he addressed himself in turn to an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a converted Palestinian Jew. At last he met Pantaenus in Alexandria, and in his teaching "found rest".

The place itself was well chosen. It was natural that Christian speculation should have a home at Alexandria. This great city was at the time a centre of culture as well as of trade. A great university had grown up under the long-continued patronage of the State. The intellectual temper was broad and tolerant, as became a city where so many races mingled. The philosophers were critics or eclectics, and Plato was the most favoured of the old masters. Neo-Platonism, the philosophy of the new pagan renaissance, had a prophet at Alexandria in the person of Ammonius Saccas. The Jews, too, who were there in very large numbers breathed its liberal atmosphere, and had assimilated secular culture. They there formed the most enlightened colony of the Dispersion. Having lost the use of Hebrew, they found it necessary to translate the Scriptures into the more familiar Greek. Philo, their foremost thinker, became a sort of Jewish Plato. Alexandria was, in addition, one of the chief seats of that peculiar mixed pagan and Christian speculation known as Gnosticism. Basilides and Valentinus taught there. It is no matter of surprise, therefore, to find some of the Christians affected in turn by the scientific spirit. At an uncertain date, in the latter half of the second century, "a school of oral instruction" was founded. Lectures were given to which pagan hearers were admitted, and advanced teaching to Christians separately. It was an official institution of the Church. Pantaenus is the earliest teacher whose name has been preserved. Clement first assisted and then succeeded Pantaenus in the direction of the school, about A.D. 190. He was already known as a Christian writer before the days of Pope Victor (188-199).

About this time he may have composed the "Hortatory Discourse to the Greeks" (Protreptikos pros Ellenas) It is a persuasive appeal for the Faith, written in a lofty strain. The discourse opens with passages which fall on the ear with the effect of sweet music. Amphion and Arion by their minstrelsy drew after them savage monsters and moved the very stones; Christ is the noblest minstrel. His harp and Iyre are men. He draws music from their hearts by the Holy Spirit: nay, Christ is Himself the New Canticle, whose melody subdues the fiercest and hardest natures. Clement then proceeds to show the transcendence of the Christian religion. He constrasts Christianity with the vileness of pagan rites and with the faint hope of pagan poetry and philosophers. Man is born for God. The Word calls men to Himself. The full truth is found in Christ alone. The work ends with a description of the God-fearing Christian. He answers those who urge that it is wrong to desert one's ancestral religion.

The work entitled "Outlines" (Hypotyposeis) is likewise believed to be a production of the early activity of Clement. It was translated into Latin by Rufinus under the title "Dispositiones". It was in eight books, but is no longer extant, though numerous fragments have been preserved in Greek by Eusebius, Oecumenius, Maximus Confessor, John Moschos, and Photius. According to Zahn, a Latin fragment, "Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas", translated by Cassiodorus and purged of objectionable passages, represents in part the text of Clement. Eusebius represents the "Outlines" as an abridged commentary, with doctrinal and historical remarks on the entire Bible and on the non-canonical "Epistle of Barnabas" and "Apocalypse of Peter". Photius, who had also read it describes it as a series of explanations of Biblical texts especially of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. He declares the work sound on some points, but adds that it contains "impieties and fables", such as the eternity of matter, the creatureship of the Word, plurality of words (Logoi), Docetism, metempsychosis, etc. Conservative scholars are inclined to believe that Photius has thrown the mistakes of Clement, whatever they may have been, into undue relief. Clement's style is difficult, his works are full of borrowed excerpts, and his teaching is with difficulty reduced to a coherent body of doctrine. And this early work, being a scattered commentary on Holy Writ, must have been peculiarly liable to misconstruction. It is certain that several of the more serious charges can rest upon nothing but mistakes. At any rate, his extant writings show Clement in a better light.

Other works of his are the "Miscellanies" (Stromateis) and "The Tutor" (Paidagogos). The "Miscellanies" comprise seven entire books, of which the first four are earlier than "The Tutor". When he had finished this latter work he returned to the "Miscellanies", which he was never able to finish. The first pages of the work are now missing. What has been known as the eighth book since the time of Eusebius is nothing more than a collection of extracts drawn from pagan philosophers. It is likely, as von Annin has suggested, that Clement had intended to make use of these materials together with the abridgement of Theodotus (Excerpts from Theodotus and the Eastern School of Valentinus) and the "Eclogae Propheticae". Extracts from the Prophets (not extracts, but notes at random on texts or Scriptural topics) for the continuation of the "Miscellanies". In the "Miscellanies" Clement disclaims order and plan. He compares the work to a meadow where all kinds of flowers grow at random and, again, to a shady hill or mountain planted with trees of every sort. In fact, it is a loosely related series of remaks, possibly notes of his lectures in the school. It is the fullest of Clement's works. He starts with the importance of philosophy for the pursuit of Christian knowledge. Here he is perhaps defending his own scientific labours from local criticism of conservative brethren. He shows how faith is related to knowledge, and emphasizes the superiority of revelation to philosophy. God's truth is to be found in revelation, another portion of it in philosophy. It is the duty of the Christian to neglect neither. Religious science, drawn from his twofold source, is even an element of perfection, the instructed Christian -- "the true Gnostic" is the perfect Christian. He who has risen to this height is far from the disturbance of passion; he is united to God, and in a mysterious sense is one with Him. Such is the line of thought indicated in the work, which is full of digressions.

"The Tutor" is a practical treatise in three books. Its purpose is to fit the ordinary Christian by a disciplined life to become an instructed Christian. In ancient times the paedagogus was the slave who had constant charge of a boy, his companion at all times. On him depended the formation of the boy's character. such is the office of the Word Incarnate towards men. He first summons them to be HIS, then He trains them in His ways. His ways are temperate, orderly, calm, and simple. Nothing is too common or trivial for the Tutor's care. His influence tells on the minute details of life, on one's manner of eating, drinking, sleeping, dressing, taking recreation, etc. The moral tone of this work is kindly; very beautiful is the ideal of a transfigured life described at the close. In the editions of Clement "The Tutor" is followed by two short poems, the second of which, addressed to the Tutor, is from some pious reader of the work; the first, entitled "A Hymn of the Saviour Christ" (Hymnos tou Soteros Christou), is, in the manuscripts which contain it, attributed to Clement. The hymn may be the work of Clement (Bardenhewer). or it may be of as early a date as the Gloria in Excesis (Westcott).

Some scholars see in the chief writings of Clement, the "Exhortation", "The Tutor", the "Miscellanies", a great trilogy representing a graduated initiation into the Christian life -- belief, discipline, knowledge -- three states corresponding to the three degrees of the neo-Platonic mysteries -- purification, initiation, and vision. Some such underlying conception was doubtless before the mind of Clement, but it can hardly be said to have been realized. He was too unsystematic. Besides these more irnportant works, he wrote the beautiful tract, "Who is the rich man who shall be saved? (tis ho sozomenos plousios). It is an exposition of St. Mark, x, 17-31, wherein Clement shows that wealth is not condemned by the Gospel as intrinsically evil; its morality depends on the good or ill use made of it. The work concludes with the narrative of the young man who was baptized, lost, and again rewon by the Apostle St. John. The date of the composition cannot be fixed. We have the work almost in its entirety. Clement wrote homilies on fasting and on evil speaking, and he also used his pen in the controversy on the Paschal question.

Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise, I, 334 sqq.) thus summarizes the remaining years of Clement's life. He did not end his life at Alexandria. The persecution fell upon Egypt in the year 202, and catechumens were pursued with special intent of law. The catechetical school suffered accordingly. In the first two books of the "Miscellanies", written at this time, we find more than one allusion to the crisis. At length Clement felt obliged to withdraw. We find him shortly after at Caesarea in Cappadocia beside his friend and former pupil bishop Alexander. The persecution is active there also, and Clement is fulfillmg a ministry of love. Alexander is in prison for Christ's sake, Clement takes charge of the Church in his stead, strengthens the faithful, and is even able to draw in additional converts. We learn this from a letter written in 211 or 212 by Alexander to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the election Asclepiades to the bishopric. Clement himself undertook to deliver the letter in person, being known to the faithful of Antioch. In another letter written about 215 to Origen Alexander speaks of Clement as of one then dead.

Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology beyond his personal influence on the young Origen. His writings were occasionally copied, as by Hippolytus in his "Chronicon", by Arnobius, and by Theodoret of Cyrus. St. Jerome admired his learning. Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement's works, but adds, "they are in no case to be received amongst us". Photius in the "Bibliotheca" censures a list of errors drawn from his writings, but shows a kindly feeling towards Clement, assuming that the original text had been tampered with. Clement has in fact been dwarfed in history by the towering grandeur of the great Origen, who succeeded him at Alexandria. Down to the seventeenth century he was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the martyrologies, and his feast fell on the fourth of December. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement's life was little known that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect. In more recent times Clement has grown in favour for his charming literary temper, his attractive candour, the brave spirit which made him a pioneer in theology, and his leaning to the claims of philosophy. He is modern in spirit. He was exceptionally well-read. He had a thorough knowledge of the whole range of Biblical and Christian literature, of orthodox and heretical works. He was fond of letters also, and had a fine knowledge of the pagan poets and philosophers; he loved to quote them, too, and has thus preserved a number of fragments of lost works. The mass of facts and citations collected by him and pieced together in his writings is in fact unexampled in antiquity, though it is not unlikely that he drew at times upon the florilegia, or anthologies, exhibiting choice passages of literature.

Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement's teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement's rule of faith was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church's tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting "the ecclesiastical rule", but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion. "Few are they", he said, "who have taken the spoils of the Egyptians, and made of them the furniture of the Tabernacle." He set himself, therefore, with philosophy as an instrument, to transform faith into science, and revelation into theology. The Gnostics had already pretended to possess the science of faith, but they were, in fact, mere rationalists, or rather dreamers of fantastic dreams. Clement would have nothing but faith for the basis of his speculations. He cannot, therefore, be accused of disloyalty in will. But he was a pioneer in a diffficult undertaking, and it must be admitted that he failed at times in his high endeavour. He was careful to go to Holy Scripture for his doctrine; but he misused the text by his faulty exegesis. He had read all the Books of the New Testament except the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Third Epistle of St. John. "In fact", Tixeront says, "his evidence as to the primitive form of the Apostolic writings is of the highest value." Unfortunately, he interpreted the Scripture after the manner of Philo. He was ready to find allegory everywhere. The facts of the Old Testament became mere symbols to him. He did not, howerer, permit himself so much freedom with the New Testament.

The special field which Clement cultivated led him to insist on the difference between the faith of the ordinary Christian and the science of the perfect, and his teaching on this point is most characteristic of him. The perfect Christian has an insight into "the great mysteries" of man, of nature, of virtue -- which the ordinary Christian accepts without clear insight. Clement has seemed to some to exaggerate the moral worth of religious knowledge; it must however be remembered that he praises not mere sterile knowledge, but knowledge which turns to love. It is Christian perfection that he extols. The perfect Christian -- the true Gnostic whom Clement loves to describe -- leads a life of unalterable calm. And here Clement's teaching is undoubtedly colored by Stoicism. He is really describing not so much the Christian with his sensitive feelings and desires under due control, but the ideal Stoic who has deadened his feelings altogether. The perfect Christian leads a life of utter devotion the love in his heart prompts him to live always in closest union with God by prayer, to labour for the conversion of souls, to love his enemies, and even to endure martyrdom itself.

Clement preceded the days of the Trinitarian controveries. He taught in the Godhead three Terms. Some critics doubt whether he distinguished them as Persons, but a careful reading of him proves that he did. The Second Terrn of the Trinity is the Word. Photius believed that Clement taught a plurality of Words, whereas in reality Clement merely drew a distinction between the Father's Divine immanent attribute of intelligence and the Personal Word Who is the Son. The Son is eternally begotten, and has the very attributes of the Father. They are but one God. So far, in fact, does Clement push this notion of unity as to seem to approach Modalism. And yet, so loose a writer is he that elsewhere are found disquieting traces of the very opposite error of Subordinationism. These, however, may be explained away. In fact, he needs to be judged, more than writers generally, not by a chance phrase here or there, but by the general drift of his teaching. Of the Holy Ghost he says little, and when he does refer to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity he adheres closely to the language of Scripture. He acknowledges two natures in Christ. Christ is the Man-God, who profits us both as God and as man. Clement evidently regards Christ as one Person -- the Word. Instances of the interchange of idioms are frequent in his writings. Photius has accused Clement of Docetism. Clement, however, clearly admits in Christ a real body, but he thought this body exempt from the common needs of life, as eating and drinking, and the soul of Christ exempt from the movement of the passions, of joy, and of sadness.

EDITIONS

The works of Clement of Alexandria were first edited by P. Victorius (Florence,1550). The most complete edition is that of J. Potter, "Clementis Alexandrini opera quae extant omnia" (Oxford, 1715; Venice, 1757), reproduced in Migne, P.G. VIII, IX. The edition of G. Dindort (Oxford, 1869) is declared unsatisfactory by competent judges. A new complete edition by O. Stahlin is appearing in the Berlin "Griechisehen christlichen Schriftsteller", etc. So far (1908) two volumes have been published: the "Protrepticus" and the "Paedagogus" (Leipzig, 1905), and the "Stromata" (Bks. I -VI, ibid., 1906). The preface to the first volume (pp. 1-83) contains the best account of the manuscripts and editions of Clement. Among the separate editions of his works the following are noteworthy: Hort and Mayor, "Miscellanies", Bk. VII, with English translation (London, 1902); Zahn, "Adumbrationes" in "Forschungen zur Geschiehte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons", III, and "Supplementum Clementinum" (Erlangen, 1884); Köster, "Quis dives salvetur?" (Freiburg, 1893). The last-mentioned work was also edited by P.M. Barnard in "Cambridge Texts and Studies" by W. Wilson (1897), and translated by him in "Early Church Classics" for the S.P.C.K. (London, 1901). For an English translation of all the writings of Clement see Ante-Nicene Christian Library (New York).

FRANCIS P. HAVEY

St. Clement of Ireland

Also known as CLEMENS SCOTUS (not to be confounded with Claudius Clemens).

Born in Ireland, towards the middle of the eighth century, died perhaps in France, probably after 818. About the year 771 he set out for France. His biographer, an Irish monk of St. Gall, who wrote his Acts, dedicated to Charles the Fat (d. 888), says that St. Clement with his companion Albinus, or Ailbe, arrived in Gaul in 772, and announced himself as a vender of learning. So great was the fame of Clement and Ailbe that Charlemane sent for them to come to his court, where they stayed for some months. Ailbe was then given the direction of a monastery near Pavia, but Clement was requested to remain in France as the master of a higher school of learning. These events may have taken place in the winter of the year 774, after Charlemagne had been in Italy. St. Clement was regent of the Paris school from 775 until his death. It was not until 782 that Alcuin became master of the royal school at Aachen, but even the fame of Alcuin in no wise diminished the acknowledged reputation of Clement. No serious writer of today thinks of repeating the legend to the effect that St. Clement was founder of the University of Paris, but, as there is a substratum of truth in most legends, the fact remains that this remarkable Irish scholar planted the mustard seed which developed into a great tree of learning at Paris. Many anecdotes are related of St. Clement's life, especially as regards his success as a teacher of youth. Among his pupils were Bruno, Modestus, and Candidus, who had been placed under his care in 803 by Ratgar, Abbot of Fulda. When Alcuin retired to Tours in 796, his post as rector of the School of the Palace was naturally given to St. Clement. In 803, as an old man, Alcuin wrote from his retirement to Charlemagne, querulously commenting on "the daily increasing infuence of the Irish at the School of the Palace". Alcuin died 19 May 804, and Charlemagne survived till 28 January 814. St. Clement is probably identical with the person of this name who wrote the biography of Charlemagne, but the question has not been definitely settled. Colgan says that he was living in 818, and gives the date of Clement's death as 20 March and the place as Auxerre where he was interred in the church of Saint-Amator.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Maurice Clenock

(Or Clynog.)

Date of birth unknown; died about 1580. He was b. in Wales and educated at Oxford, where he was admitted Bachelor of Canon Law in 1548. During Mary's reign he became almoner and secretary to Cardinal Pole, prebendary of York, rector of Orpington (Kent), and dean of Shoreham and Croydon, and chancellor of the prerogative court of Canterbury. In 1556 he was made rector or Corwen in the Diocese of St. Asaph, and on the death of the Bishop of Bangor in 1558 was nominated to the vacant see, but was never consecrated, owing to the change of religion under Elizabeth. Surrendering all his preferments, he accompanied Bishop Goldwell of St. Asaph to Rome, where they resided in the English hospital, of which Clenock was camerarius in 1567. In 1578 he was made its warden. At the sme time Gregory XIII ordered the hospital to be converted into a college until Englad should return to the Church. The warden was made the first rector of the college by the pope; but Cardinal Allen judged him unfit, thought he described him as "an honest and friendly man and a great advancer of the students' and seminaries' cause" (Letter to Dr. Lewis, 12 May 1579). Depsite his personal good qualities he did not prove a competent ruler. He was accused of unduly favouring his fellow-countrymen at the expense of the English students, who numbered thirty-three as against seven Welshmen. Feeling ran so high that, as Allen wrote, "Mischief and murder had like to have been committed in ipso collegio" (letter cited above). The students, having unsuccessfully appealed to the pope, left the college, and finally the pope, in April, 1579, appointed Father Agazzari, S. J., rector, leaving Dr. Clenock still warden of the hospital. He retired, however, in 1580 to Rouen, where he took ship for Spain, but was lost at sea. In contemporary documents he is frequently referred to as "Dr. Morrice".

Dodd, Church History (Brussels, 1737), I, 513, also Tierney's edition (London, 1839), II, 167 sqq.; Kirk, Catholic Miscellany (London, 1826), VI 255; Knox, Historical Introduction to Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Foley, Records Eng. Prov. S.J. (London, 1880), Introduction; Knox Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen (London, 1882); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 501; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887), XI 37; Law, Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Elizabeth (London, 1889); Sander, Report to Cardinal Moroni in Cath. Record Soc. Miscellanea (London, 1905), I; Parsons, Memoirs in Cath. Record Soc. Miscellanea (London, 1906), II.

EDWIN BURTON

Cleophas

According to the Catholic English versions the name of two persons mentioned in the New Testament. In Greek, however, the names are different, one being Cleopas, abbreviated form of Cleopatros, and the other Clopas. The first one, Cleopas, was one of the two disciples to whom the risen Lord appeared at Emmaus (Luke, xxiv, 18). We have no reliable data concerning him; his name is entered in the martyrology on the 25th of September. (See Acta Sanctorum, Sept., VII, 5 sqq.) The second, Clopas, is mentioned in St. John, xix, 25, where a Mary is called Maria he tou Klopa, which is generally translated by "Mary the wife of Clopas". This name, Clopas, is thought by many to be the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic Alphaeus. This view is based on the identification of Mary, the mother of James etc. (Mark, xv, 40) with Mary, the wife of Clopas, and the consequent identity of Alphaeus, father of James (Mark, iii, 18), with Clopas. Etymologically, however, the identification of the two names offers serious difficulties: (1) Although the letter Heth is occasionally rendered in Greek by Kappa at the end and in the middle of words, it is very seldom so in the beginning, where the aspirate is better protected; examples of this, however, are given by Levy (Sem. Fremdwörter in Griech.); but (2) even if this difficulty was met, Clopas would suppose an Aramaic Halophai, not Halpai. (3) The Syriac versions have rendered the Greek Clopas with a Qoph, not with a Heth, as they would have done naturally had they been conscious of the identity of Clopas and Halpai; Alphaeus is rendered with Heth (occasionally Aleph). For these reasons, others see in Clopas a substitute for Cleopas, with the contraction of eo into w. In Greek, it is true, eo is not contracted into w, but a Semite, borrowing a name did not necessarily follow the rules of Greek contraction. In fact, in Mishnic Hebrew the name Cleopatra is rendered by Clopatra, and hence the Greek Cleopas might be rendered by Clopas. See also, Chabot, "Journ. Asiat.", X, 327 (1897). Even if, etymologically, the two names are different they may have been borne by one name, and the question of the identity of Alphaeus and Clopas is still open. If the two persons are distinct, then we know nothing of Clopas beyond the fact recorded in St. John; if, on the contrary, they are identified, Clopas' personality is or may be closely connected with the history of the brethren of the Lord and of James the Less. (See Brethren of the Lord; James The Less.)

Schegg, Jakobus der Bruder des Hern (Munich, 1883); Nicoll, Alphaeus and Klopas in The Expositor (1885), 79 sqq; Wetzel, Alphaeus u. Klopas in Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. (1883), 620 sq.; Jaquier in Vig, Dict. de la Bib., s.v. Alphee; also commentaries on John xix, 25.

R. BUTIN Mary Claire Lynch

Clerestory

A term formerly applied to any window or traceried opening in a church, e. g. in an aisle, tower, cloister, or screen, but now restricted to the windows in an aisled nave, or to the range of wall in which the high windows are set. Sometimes these windows are very small, being mere quatrefoils or spherical triangles. In Large buildings, however, they are important features both of beauty and utility. The clerestory is especially used in churches where the division into nave and side aisles permits the introduction of light into the body of the church from above the aisle roofs. According to Fergusson's theory, the interior of Greek temples was lighted by a clerestory, similar internally to that found in the great Egyptian temples, but externally requiring such a change of arrangement as was necessary to adapt it to a sloping instead of a flat roof. This seems to have been effected by countersinking into the roof, so as to make three ridges in those parts where the light was admitted, though the regular shape of the roof was retained between these openings. Thus, neither the ridge nor the continuity of the lines of the roof was interfered with. This theory is borne out by all the remains of Greek temples that now exist, and by all the descriptions that have been handed down from antiquity. Simpson, however, regards the theory as extremely improbable.

FLETCHER AND FLETCHER, A History of Architecture (London, New York, 1896), 690; GWILT, Encyc. of Arch. (London, 1881), 1648; PARKER, Glossary of Arch. (Oxford, 1850), I. 104; STURGIS, Dict. of Arch. and Building (London, 1904); FERGUSSON, A History of Architecture in all Countries (New York); SIMPSON, A history of Architectural Development (New York, 1905).

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Cleric

A person who has been legitimately received into the ranks of the clergy. By clergy in the strict sense is meant the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy. Consequently a cleric is one who belongs in some sense to the hierarchy. For this it is necessary that he have received at least the tonsure (see TONSURE). The clergy by Divine right form an order or state which is essentially distinct from that of the laity. (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIV, De sac. ord., can. i, 6.) Christ did not commit the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments to the faithful in general, but to certain carefully defined persons, as the Apostles and seventy-two Disciples. They also received the power of governing the flocks; which power is represented by the Keys, a well-known Oriental symbol for authority. That the distinction between clergy and laity was recognized in New Testament times is plain from St. Paul's statement that the bishops have been placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church (Acts, xx, 28), for the right to rule implies a correlative obligation to obey. Presbyters are continually distinguished from the laity throughout the Pualine Epistles.

The word cleric (Lat., clericus from clerus) is derived from the Greek kleros, a "lot". In the Septuagint, this word is used in the literal sense quite frequently, though not in its later technical sense. In the First Epistle of St. Peter (v, 3) it is applied to entire body of the faithful. The use of the word in its present restricted meaning occurs, however, as early as the third century. It is found in Tertullian (De idol., c. viii), Origen (Hom. in Jer., xi, 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives salvetur, c. xlii) in this sense. It is not easy to determine exactly how the word came to have its present determinate meaning. The "Pontificale Romanum" refers to clerics as being those whose "lot" is the Lord Himself, and St. Jerome explicitly derives the name from that fact. These statements do not give us, however, the steps by which kleros, "lot" became "clergy" or "cleric". Probably the best suggested explanation is, that from lot or portion, it came to mean a particular lot or office assigned to some one, and finally the person himself possessing the lot or office.

EXTENSION OF MEANING

While cleric in its strict sense means one who has received the ecclesiastical tonsure, yet in general sense it is also employed in canon law for all to whom clerical privileges have been extended. Such are the members of religious orders: Monks and nuns, and even lay brothers and novices. It is also applied to tertiaries of the mendicant orders. If they be men, however, they must live in community, but if they be women they many enjoy the privilege even when living at home. Hermits and virgins, or celibates whose vows are approved by the bishop, have likewise clerical immunities. Members of the military religious orders, such as formerly the Knights Templars, and at present the Teutonic Knights and Knights of Malta, rank as clerics. The meaning of the word has been so extended as to include even laics, men or women, who render service to a regular community, such as by begging, provided they wear a clerical dress and reside near the monastery or convent. The privileges enjoyed by thus obtaining the benefit of clergy were once great (see IMMUNITY), and were formerly recognized by secular governments. In modern times, however, these privileges in as far as they were guaranteed by the civil power have been almost entirely swept away in every country of the world. It is only when there is question of favours, or as canonists say, in a favourable sense, that cleric has this wide signification. When there is question of penalties, on the contrary, it becomes so restricted as to mean only the lower orders of the secular clergy. In England in medieval times the term clerk acquired in common parlance the significance of an educated man.

CLERICAL RELIGIOUS ORDERS

Among the regular orders in the strict sense, namely those whose members have solemn vows, is a large class designated as clerks regular (clerici regulares) because living according to a rule (regula). In contradistinction to the monastic orders, these clerical orders were instituted for the purpose of exercising a ministry similar to that of the secular clerics, by promotion of the Divine worship and procuring the salvation of souls. Their main object is the spiritual and temporal service of their neighbour in educating youth, preaching, serving the sick, etc. Orders of clerks regular were first founded in the sixteenth century. To this class belong the Jesuits, Theatines, Barnabites, and others. Many religious congregations, which are not orders in the strict sense, such as the Passionists and Redemptorists follow a similar mode of life.

REGIONARY CLERICS

Regionary clerics, who are also called clerici vagantes and acephali, were those who were ordained without title to a special church. They were received into the sacred ministry by the bishops for the purpose of supplying the dearth of the clergy in the outlying districts of the dioceses where no benefices existed. Here they were to act as missionaries and in course of time, if possible, to gather together congregations who would build and endow a church. Many of these clerics became mere wanderers without settled occupation or abode, sometimes supporting themselves by filling temporary chaplaincies in the castles of noblemen. In course of time, numbers of these untitled clerics returned to the settled portions of their dioceses and acted as assistants to such beneficed clergymen as chose to accept their help. Owing to the abuses arising from the unsettled state of these vagrant clerics, the Council of Trent (Sess, XXIII, c. xvi, De ref.) forbade the ordaining in future of any candidate who was not attached to a definite church or pious institute.

OBLIGATIONS OF CLERICS

(1) They must wear a costume suited to their state. While the common canon law does not determine in every detail what the dress of clerics should be, yet many and various prescriptions on the subject are found in the canons, the pontifical constitutions, and the decrees of councils. These ordain that the clerics are not to wear the dress of laymen. They must abstain from gaudy colours, unbecoming their state. The wearing of the soutane or cassock on all occasions, even in public, is prescribed for clerics living in Rome, and bishops may command the same in their dioceses. In non-Catholic countries, synods generally prescribe that for public use the dress of clerics should be such as to distinguish them from laymen; that is of black or of a sober colour, and that the so-called Roman collar be worn. In private, clergymen are commonly required to wear the soutane.

(2) Clerics are forbidden to engage in trade and secular business. In the early ages of the Church, it was allowable to seek necessary sustenance by labour, and that is not forbidden now if the cleric does not receive proper support from ecclesiastical sources. What is specially prohibited is to engage in trade for the sake of gain. The buying and selling, however, which is necessary in the administration of the lands or the goods of a benefice do not fall under the prohibition. Neither is it forbidden to clerics nowadays to place their money out at interest and receive the increment; for this is equivalent, allowing for modern circumstances, to the economic management of the lands of ecclesiastical benefices. Gambling in stocks, however, remains an illicit form of trade for clergymen (Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., II, n. 612).

(3) There are stringent laws concerning the relations of clerics with persons of the other sex. They must conform to the canons in all that regards allowing females to dwell in their houses. Above all must they avoid associating with those whose moral character causes the least suspicion.

(4) Unbecoming amusements are also forbidden to them, such as the frequenting of improper plays and spectacles, the visiting of taverns, indulgence in games of chance, carrying of arms, following the chase, etc. When in the above amusements, however, there is no necessary impropriety, lawful custom and synodal prescriptions may make a participation in them allowable.

(5) Clerics are bound to obey their diocesan bishops in all matters determined by the canon law. Various Roman decisions have declared that by his ordinary authority, the bishop cannot oblige clerics to render to him any service not expressed in the canons. While the obligation of obedience is binding on all clerics, it is strengthened for priests by the solemn promise made at ordination, and for all holders of benefices by the canonical oath. The obligation to be subject to the bishop in lawful matters is not, however, a vow.

LOSS OF CLERICAL PRIVILEGES

Although the sacramental character received in Sacred orders may not be obliterated, yet even the higher orders of clergy may be degraded from their dignity and reduced to what is technically called lay communion. The same holds, of course, likewise for the lower clergy. When, however, a cleric who has received only minor orders or even tonsure, after losing his privileges, has been restored to the clerical state, this restitution, even when solemn, is merely ceremonious and is not considered as a new conferring of tonsure or minor orders. Even minor clerics are therefore considered to have a stable connection with the hierarchical order. See MINOR ORDERS; DEACON; SUBDEACON; PRIEST; HIERARCHY; LAITY.

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibl. (Rome, 1886), II; LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Giovanni Clericato

Canonist, born 1633, at Padua; died 1717. He was of English descent, and the name is variously written CLERICATUS, CHERICATO, CHERICATI, and CHIERICATO, probably from CLARK, the original family name. The charity of a pious woman made it possible for him to satisfy his strong inclination for study; and, being raised to the priesthood he came to be considered one of the ablest men of his time in matters of ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Cardinal Barbarigo, whose life he afterwards wrote, made him Vicar-General of the Diocese of Padua. He wrote many works on civil and canon law; his "Decisiones Sacramentales" was published in 1727, and in 1757 in three volumes, and merited the encomiums of Benedict XIV (notific. 32, n. 6). His name is held in honour in Italian ecclesiastical literature.

MORÉRI, Gr. Dict. Hist. (Paris, 1759); SBERTI, Memorie (Padua, 1790); TIRABOSCHI, Storia della Lett. Ital. (Milan, 1825).

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Clericis Laicos

The initial words of a Bull issued 25 Feb., 1296, by Boniface VIII in response to an earnest appeal of the English and French prelates for protection against the intolerable exactions of the civil power (see Boniface VIII.) The decree was inserted among the papal decretals and is found in Lib. Sextus, III, tit. 23. After a preamble in which the pope complains that the laity are, and have always been, bitterly hostile to the clergy; that, although they possess no authority over ecclesiastical persons or property, they impose all sorts of heavy burdens on the clergy and seek to reduce them to servitude; that several prelates and other dignitaries of the Church, more fearful of giving offence to their earthly rulers than to the majesty of God, acquiesce in these abuses, without having obtained authority or permission from the Apostolic See; he, therefore, wishing to put an end to these iniquitous proceedings, with the consent of his cardinals and by Apostolic authority decrees that all prelates or other ecclesiastical superiors who under whatsoever pretext or colour shall, without authority from the Holy See, pay to laymen any part of their income or of the revenue of the Church; also all emperors, kings, dukes, counts, etc. who shall exact or receive such payments incur eo ipso the sentence of excommunication from which, except in articulo mortis, no one can absolve them without special faculties from the pope; no privileges or dispensations to be of avail against the decree.

The two underlying principles of this Bull, viz. (1) that the clergy should enjoy equally with the laity the right of determining the need and the amount of their subsidies to the Crown, and (2) that the head of the Church ought to be consulted when there was question of diverting the revenues of the Church to secular purposes, were by no means strange or novel in that age of Magnæ Chartæ; and outside of France and England it was accepted without a murmur. But what excited the wrath of the two chief culprits, Philip the Fair and Edward I, was that from its fiery tone, from the express mention of sovereigns, and the grave ipso facto penalties attached, they felt that behind the decree there stood a new Hildebrand resolved to enforce it to the letter. The Bull has been criticized for the unconventional vehemence of its tone, for its exaggerated indictment of the hostile attitude of the laity of all ages towards the clergy, and for its failure to make clear the distinction between the revenues of the purely ecclesiastical benefices and the lay fees held by the clergy on feudal tenure. The unscrupulous advisers of Philip the Fair were quick to take advantage of the pope's hasty language and, by forcing him to make explanations, put him on the defensive and weakened his prestige.

For sources and literature, see BONIFACE VIII.

James F. Loughlin

John Clerk

Bishop of Bath and Wells; date of birth unknown; died 3 January, 1541. He was educated at Cambridge (B. A., 1499; M A., 1502) and Bologna, where he became Doctor of Laws. When he returned to England he attached himself to Cardinal Wolsey, and much preferment followed. He became Rector of Hothfield, Kent, 1508; Master of the Maison Dieu at Dover, 1509; Rector of Portishead (Somerset) 1513; Ivychurch (Kent), West Tarring (Sussex), and Charlton, all in 1514; South Molton (Devonshire) and Archdeacon of Colohester, 1519; Dean of Windsor and judge in the Court of Star Chamber, 1519. He was also Dean of the King's Chapel. He was useful in diplomatic commissions both to Wolsey and the king. In 1521 he was appointed ambassador to the Papal Court, in which capacity he presented King Henry's book against Luther to the pope in full consistory. He acted as Wolsey's agent in Rome in the conclave on the death of Leo X. He returned to England to be appointed Master of the Rolls in October, 1522, which office he held till 9 October, 1523. When Wolsey resigned the See of Bath and Wells, in 1523, Clerk was appointed bishop in his stead. As bishop-elect he went on another political embassy to Rome, where he received episcopal consecration, 6 December, 1523. He remained in Rome for two years and once more unsuccessfully represented Wolsey's interests at the conclave in which Clement VII was elected pope. He left Rome in November, 1525, but was so useful as a diplomatic agent that he was never long in England, and his diocese was administered by his two suffragan bishops. When the question of the royal divorce was raised Clerk was appointed as one of the queen's counsellors, but Wolsey persuaded him to agree on her behalf that she should withdraw from proceedings at Rome. Afterwards he joined in pronouncing sentence of divorce, and is believed to have assisted Cranmer in works on the supremacy and the divorce. His last embassy was in 1540, to the Duke of Cleves, to explain the king's divorce of Anne of Cleves. On his return he was taken ill at Dunkirk, not without suspicion of poison, but he managed to reach England, though only to die. He lies buried at St. Botolph's, Aldgate, not at Dunkirk, as sometimes stated.

Clerk wrote "Oratio pro Henrico VIII apud Leonem pontif. Max. in exhibitione operis regii contra Lutherum in consistonio habitam" (London, 1541), translated into English by T. W. (Thomas Warde?), 1687.

Letters and State Papers of Henry VIII (London, 1830-52); CHERBURY, Life and Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1714); HUNT in Dict. of Nat. Biogr., s. v.; DODD, Church Hist. (London, 1737), I, 181-2; COOPER, Athenæ. Cantab. (Cambridge, 1858), I, 77; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. The account of PITTS, De Ang. Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), is erroneous.

EDWIN BURTON.

Agnes Mary Clerke

Astronomer, born at Skibbereen, County Cork, Ireland, 10 February, 1842; died in London, 20 January 1907. At the very beginning of her study she showed a marked interest in astronomy, and before she was fifteen years old she had begun to write a history of that science. In 1861 the family moved to Dublin, and in 1863 to Queenstown. Several years later she went to Italy where she stayed until 1877, chiefly at Florence, studying at the public library and preparing for literary work. In 1877 she settled in London. Her first important article, "Copernicus in Italy", was published in the "Edinburgh Review" (October, 1877). She achieved a wold-wide reputation in 1885, on the appearance of her exhaustive treatise, "A Popular History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century". This was at once recognized as an authoritative work. Miss Clerke was not a practical astronomer; in 1888, however, she spent three months at the Cape Observatory as the guest of the director, Sir David Gill, and his wife. There she became sufficiently familiar with spectroscopic work to be enabled to write about this newer branch of the science with increased clearness and confidence. In 1892 the Royal Institution awarded to her the Actonian Prize of one hundred guineas. As a member of the British Astronomical Association she attended its meetings regularly, as well as those of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1903, with Lady Huggins, she was elected an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society, a rank previously held only by two other women, Caroline Herschel and Mary Somerville. Her work is remarkable in a literary as well as in a scientific way. She compiled facts with untiring diligence, sifted them carefully, discussed them with judgment, and suggested problems and lines of future research. All this is expressed in polished, eloquent, and beautiful language. With this scientific temperament she combined a noble religious nature that made her acknowledge "with supreme conviction" the insufficiency of science to know and predict the possible acts of Divine Power. Her works, all published in London, include, "A Popular History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century" (1885, 4th revised ed., 1902); "The System of the Stars" (1890; 2nd ed., 1905); "The Herschels and Modern Astronomy" (1895); "The Concise Knowledge Astronomy" -- in conjunction with J. E. Gore and A. Fowler (1898); "Problems in Astrophysics" (1903); "Modern Cosmogonies" (1906). To the "Edinburgh Review" she contributed fifty-five articles, mainly on subjects connected with astrophysics. The articles on astronomers in the "Dictionary of National Biography"; on "Laplace" and some on other astronomers and astronomical subjects in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"; and on "Astronomy" in The Catholic Encyclopedia were from her pen, as well as numerous contributions to "Knowledge", "The Observatory", the London "Tablet", and other periodicals.

The Tablet, files (London, March, 1906; January, 1907); Obituary in Monthly Notices of the R.A.S. (London, 1907); Macpherson in Popular Astronomy (London, March, 1907); The Messenger Magazine (New York, March, 1907).

WILLIAM FOX

Ellen Mary Clerke

Sister of preceding, journalist and novelist, b. at Skibbereen, County Cork, Ireland, 1840; d. in London, 2 March 1906. A gifted and accomplished writer, she was for many years an editorial writer for the London "Tablet". Her knowledge of the intricacies of the religious and political problems of Continental Europe was remarkable. A seven years' stay in Italy made her intimately familiar not only with its language and literature, but also with every phase of its public life. She contributed a series of stories, perfect in Italian phrase, idiom, and local colour, to periodicals in Florence. Her pamphlets, "Jupiter and His System" and "The Planet Venus", were valuable additions to the literature of popular astronomy. In 1899 she published "Fable and Song in Italy", a collection of essays and studies and specimens of Italian poetry rendered into English in the original metres. A novel, "Flowers of Fire" (1902), was her last work.

WILLIAM FOX

Clerks Regular

Canonical Status

By clerks regular are meant those bodies of men in the Church who by the very nature of their institute unite the perfection of the religious state to the priestly office, i.e. who while being essentially clerics, devoted to the exercise of the ministry in preaching, the administration of the sacraments, the education of youth, and other spiritual and corporal works of mercy, are at the same time religious in the strictest sense of the word, professing solemn vows, and living a community life according to a rule solemnly approved of by the sovereign pontiff. In the Corpus Juris Canonici the term clerks regular is often used for canons regular, and regular clerks are classed by authors as a branch or modern adaptation of the once world-famous family of regular canons (see CANONS AND CANONESSES REGULAR). This is because of the intimate connection existing between the two; for while separated from the secular clergy by their vows and the observance of a community life and a rule, they form a distinct class in the religious state, the clerical, in opposition to the monastic, which includes monks, hermits, and friars.

Clerks regular are distinguished from the purely monastic bodies, or monks, in four ways:

• They are primarily devoted to the sacred ministry; not so the monks, whose proper work is contemplation and the solemn celebration of the liturgy.
• They are obliged to cultivate the sacred sciences, which, if cultivated by the monks, are yet not imposed upon them by virtue of their state of life.
• Clerks regular as clerics must retain some appearance of clerical dress distinct from the habit and cowl of the monk.
• And lastly, because of their occupations, they are less given to the practice of austerity which is a distinct feature of the purely monastic life.

They are distinguished from the friars in this, that though the latter are devoted to the sacred ministry and the cultivation of learning, they are not primarily priests. Finally, clerks regular differ from canons regular in that they do not possess cathedral or collegiate churches, devote themselves more completely to ministerial work in place of choir-service, and have fewer penitential observances of rule.

History

The exact date at which clerks regular appeared in the Church cannot be absolutely determined. Regular clerks of some sort, i.e. priests devoted both to the exercise of the ministry and to the practice of the religious life, are found in the earliest days of Christian antiquity. Many eminent theologians hold that the clerks regular were founded by Christ Himself. In this opinion the Apostles were the first regular clerks, being constituted by Christ ministers par excellence of His Church and called by Him personally to the practice of the counsels of the religious life (cf. Suarez). From the fact that St. Augustine in the fourth century established in his house a community of priests, leading the religious life, for whom he drew up a rule, he has ordinarily been styled the founder of the regular clerks and canons, and upon his rule have been built the constitutions of the canons regular and an immense number of the religious communities of the Middle Ages, besides those of the clerks regular established in the sixteenth century. During the whole medieval period the clerks regular were represented by the regular canons who under the name of the Canons Regular or Black Canons of St. Augustine, the Premonstratensians or White Canons, Canons of St. Norbert, etc., shared with the monks the possession of those magnificent abbeys and monasteries all over Europe which, even though they are in ruins, compel the admiration of the beholder.

It was not until the sixteenth century that clerks regular in the modern and strictest sense of the word came into being. Just as the conditions obtaining in the thirteenth century brought about a change in the monastic ideal, so in the sixteenth the altered circumstances of the times called for a fresh development of the ever fecund religious spirit in the Church. This development, adapted to the needs of the times, was had in the various bodies of simple clerics, who, desirous of devoting themselves more perfectly to the exercise of their priestly ministry under the safeguards of the religious life, instituted the several bodies which, under the names of the various orders or regular clerics, constitute in themselves and in their imitators one of the most efficient instruments for good in the Church militant to-day. So successful and popular and well adapted to all modern needs were the clerks regular, that their mode of life was chosen as the pattern for all the various communities of men, whether religious or secular, living under rule, in which the Church has in recent times been so prolific. The first order of clerks regular to be founded were the Theatines (q.v.) established at Rome in 1524; then followed the Clerks Regular of the Good Jesus, founded at Ravenna in 1526, and abolished by Innocent X in 1651; the Barnabites (q.v.) or Clerks Regular of St. Paul, Milan, 1530; The Somaschi (q.v.) or Clerks Regular of St. Majolus, Somasca, 1532; the Jesuits or the Society of Jesus, Paris, 1534; the Regular Clerks of the Mother of God, Lucca, 1583; the Regular Clerks Ministering to the Sick, Rome, 1584; the Minor Clerks Regular, Naples, 1588; and the Piarists or Regular Clerks of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, Rome, 1597. Since the close of the sixteenth century no new orders have been added to the number, though the name Clerks Regular has been assumed occasionally by communities that are technically only religious, or pious, congregations (see CONGREGATIONS, RELIGIOUS).

SUAREZ, De Religione, tr. 9: HUMPHREY, Elements of Religious Life (London, 1884); IDEM, The Religious State (London, 1903), II; ANDRE-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canonique (Paris, 1901); VERMEERSCH, De Religious Institutis et Personis (Bruges, 1904), I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), III; HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859), ed. MIGNE, III; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kong. der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), III.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Clerks Regular of Our Saviour

A religious congregation instituted in its present form in 1851, at Benoite-Vaux in the Diocese of Verdun, France. The constitutions and spirit of the congregation are those of the Canons Regular of Our Saviour, who were established as a reform among the various bodies of regular canons in Lorraine by St. Peter Fourier, canon of Chamousay in 1623, and confirmed by Urban VIII in 1628. The scope of the reformed order, as outlined in the "Summarium Constitutionum" of St. Peter, was the Christian education of youth and the exercise of the sacred ministry among the poor and neglected. The order flourished exceedingly throughout the Duchy of Lorraine and made its way into France and Savoy; but was completely destroyed by the French Revolution. In 1851 four zealous priests of the Diocese of Verdun, anxious to see revived the apostolic labours of the sons of Fourier, withdrew to the retired shrine of Our Lady of Cenoite-Vaux, and there began a religious life according to the rule given to his canons by St. Peter Fourier. Three years later they received the approbation of the Holy See, which changed their name from Canons Regular, the title of the earlier organization to Clerks Regular. During the next half century the congregation spread and it now numbers several houses, its special work being the education of youth. The members of the congregation are of three grades, priests, scholastics, and lay brothers. Though possessing the title "clerks regular" they are not such in the strict sense of the word, as their vows, though perpetual, are simple, according to the present practice of the Roman authorities of establishing no new institutes of solemn vows.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kong. der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), II, 47 sq.; HELYOT, Dict. des ordres religieux, (Paris, 1859), ed. MIGNE, IV.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Clerks Regular of the Mother of God of Lucca

Clerks Regular of the Mother of God of Lucca, a congregation founded by the Blessed Giovanni Leonardi, son of middle-class parents, who was born in 1541 at Diecimo, a small township in the Republic of Lucca, though at that time the chief place of a fief of the same name held by the bishops of Lucca from the republic. At seventeen years of age he was sent to Lucca to learn the apothecary's trade, but having from a tender age been most piously inclined, he, after many difficulties, including the necessity of educating himself, embraced the sacerdotal state, and was ordained 22 December, 1572. His congregation may be said to have begun in 1574. Two or three young laymen, attracted by his sanctity and the sweetness of his character, had gathered round him to submit themselves to his spiritual guidance and help him in the work for the reform of manners and the saving of souls which he had begun even as a layman. Giovanni rented the beautiful little church of Santa Maria della Rosa, and in a quarter close by, something like community life was started. It was here, when it became evident that Giovanni's lay helpers were preparing for the priesthood and that something like a religious order was in process of formation, that a storm of persecution broke out against the devoted founder. The Fathers of the republic seem to have had a real fear that a native religious order, if spread over Italy, would cause the affairs of the little state to become too well known to its neighbours. The persecution, however, was so effective and lasting, that the Blessed Leonardi practically spent the rest of his life in banishment from Lucca, only being now and again admitted by special decree of the Senate, unwillingly extracted under papal pressure. In 1580 Giovanni acquired secretly the ancient church of Santa Maria Cortelandini (popularly known as Santa Maria Nera) which his sons hold to this day. In 1583 the congregation was canonically erected at the instigation of Pope Gregory XIII by Bishop Alessandro Guidiccioni, of Lucca, and confirmed by the Brief of Clement VIII "Ex quo divina majestas", 13 October, 1595.

The congregation at this time only took simple vows of chastity, perseverance, and obedience, and was known as the "Congregation of Clerks Secular of the Blessed Virgin". In 1596 Clement VIII nominated the Blessed Giovanni commissary Apostolic for the reform of the monks of the Order of Monte Vergine, and in 1601 the cardinal protector appointed him to carry out a similar work among the Vallombrosans. In 1601 he obtained the church of S. Maria in Portico in Rome. In the same year Cardinal Baronius became protector of the congregation. Giovanni died in Rome 9 October, 1609, aged sixty-eight, and was buried in Santa Maria in Portico. The present church of the congregation in Rome, obtained in 1662, is Santa Maria in Campitelli (called also Santa Maria in Portico) interesting to Englishmen as the first titular church of the Cardinal of York. The body of the founder was removed to this church and lies there under the altar of St. John the Baptist. Giovanni Leonardi was declared Venerable in 1701, and beatified by Pius IX in 1861. Leo XIII, in 1893, caused his name to be inserted in the Roman Martyrology and ordered the clergy of Rome to say his Mass and Office, an honour accorded to no other Blessed in that city except the beatified popes. In 1614 Paul V confided to the congregation the care of the so-called Pious Schools. It is in his Brief "Inter Pastoralis" that the congregation is first called "of the Mother of God", having until then been known by its original name of "Clerks Secular of the Blessed Virgin". The care of these schools being considered outside the scope of the congregation, it was relieved of their charge by the same pontiff in 1617.

It was not until 1621 (3 November) that Gregory XV, carrying out what was always in the founder's mind, erected the congregation into a religious order proper by permitting its members to take solemn vows, and it henceforth became the Clerks Regular of the Mother of God. The Blessed Leonardi received many offers of churches during his life, but with a view of conciliating the governing body of the republic thought it better to refuse them. In all its history the order has never had more than fifteen churches, and never more than seven at one time. It was introduced into Naples in 1632, Genoa 1669, and Milan 1709. The only churches of the order now existing are Santa Maria Cortelandini, Lucca; Santa Maria in Campitelli, Rome; Santa Maria in Portico di Chiaja, and Santa Brigida, Naples; the Madonna della Stella Migliano (1902); and the parish church of S. Carlo in Monte Carlo (1873), the only church of the order outside the borders of modern Italy. In the sacristy of Santa Maria Cortelandini is preserved a large portion of a hair-shirt of St. Thomas of Canterbury whose feast is celebrated there with considerable ceremony; in 1908 half of this relic was presented to the Benedictine Abbey of St. Thomas, Erdington, England. The former residence of the clerks, who kept a large boys' school until the suppression in 1867, is now the public library of Lucca. Two of the original companions of the holy founder, Cesare Franciotti and Giovanni Cioni, have been declared Venerable. The order justly enjoys great fame for its learning and its numerous scholars and writers. Suffice it to mention Giovanni Domenico Mansi, editor of the "Councils" and a hundred other works. The arms of the order are azure, Our Lady Assumed into Heaven; and its badge and seal the monogram of the Mother of God in Greek characters.

HÉLYOT, Hist. Ord. Rel., especially the Italian version by FONTANA, clerk of this congregation (Lucca, 1738), IV, 268-295; BONANNI, Cat. Ord. Relig., I; MARRACCI, Vita del V. P. Giovanni Leonardi (Rome, 1673); GUERRA, La Vita del B. Giov. Leonardi (Monza, 1895); BARBOSA, Jur. Eccl. Univ., I, xli, 162; Bullar. Rom., III; SARTESCHI, De Scriptoribus Cong. Cler. Matris Dei.

MONTGOMERY CARMICHAEL.

Diocese of Clermont

(CLERMONT-FERRAND; CLAROMONTENSIS)

Comprises the entire department of Puy-de-Dôme and is a suffragan of Bourges. Although at first very extensive, in 1317 the diocese lost Haute-Auvergne through the creation of the Diocese of Saint Flourandin 1822 the Bourbonnais, on account of the erection of the Diocese of Moulins. The first Bishop of Clermont was St. Austremonius (Stramonius). (See AUSTREMONIUS.) According to local tradition he was one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ, by birth a Jew, who came with St. Peter from Palestine to Rome and subsequently became the Apostle of Auvergne, Berry, Nivernais, and Limousin. At Clermont he is said to have converted the senator Cassius and the pagan priest Victorinus, to have sent St. Sirenatus (Cerneuf) to Thiers, St. Marius to Salers, Sts. Nectarius and Antoninus into other parts of Auvergne, and to have been beheaded in 92. This tradition is based on a life of St. Anstremonius written in the tenth century in the monastery of Mozat, where the body of the saint had rested from 761, and rewritten by the monks of Issoire, who retained the saint's head. St. Gregory of Tours, born in Auvergne in 544 and well versed in the history of that country, looks upon Austremonius as one of the seven envoys who, about 250, evangelized Gaul; he relates how the body of the saint was first interred at Issoire, being there the object of great veneration.

Clermont counted amongst its bishops a large number of saints, as St. Urbicus (c. 312); St. Leoguntius; St. Illidius (Allyre), who, about 385, cured the daughter of the Emperor Maximus at Trier; the saint's name was given to the petrifying springs of Clermont, and his life was written by Gregory of Tours; St. Nepotianus (died 388); St. Artemius (died about 394); St. Venerandus (Veau, died about 423); St. Rusticus (424-46); St. Namatius (446-62), founder of the Clermont cathedral, where he deposited the relics of Sts. Vitalis and Agricola brought from Bologna; Sidonius Apollinaris (470-79), the celebrated Christian writer who brought to Clermont the priest St. Amabilis; St. Aprunculus (died about 491); St. Euphrasius (491-515); St. Quintianus (died about 527), whose life was written by Gregory of Tours; St. Gallus (527-51), of whom Gregory of Tours was the biographer and nephew; St. Avitus (second half of the sixth century), founder of Notre Dame du Port; St. Cæsarius (c. 627); St. Gallus II (c. 650); St. Genesius (c. 660); St. Præjectus (Prix), historian of the martyrs of Clermont and assassinated at Volvic 25 January, 676; St. Avitus II (676-91); St. Bonitus, intimate friend of Sigebert II (end of seventh century); St. Stabilis (823-60). and St. Sigo (866). Among the Bishops of Clermont should also be mentioned: Pierre de Cros (1301-04), engaged by St. Thomas Aquinas to complete his "Summa"; Etienne d'Albert (1340-42), later Pope Innocent VI (1352-62); Guillaume du Prat (1528-60), founder of the Clermont College at Paris and delegate of Francis I to the Council of Trent; and Massillon, the illustrious orator (1717-42). The Diocese of Clermont can likewise claim a number of monks whom the Church honours as saints, viz: St. Calevisus (Calais, 460-541), a pupil in the monastery of Menat near Riom, whence he retired to Maine, where he founded the Abbey of Anisole; St. Maztius (died 527), founder at Royat near Clermont of a monastery which became later a Benedictine priory; St. Portianus (sixth century), founder of a monastery to which the city of Saint-Pourçain (Allier) owes its origin; St. Etienne de Muret (1046-1124), son of the Viscount of Thiers and founder of the Order of Grandmont in Limousin, and St. Peter the Venerable (1092-1156), of the Montboissier family of Auvergue, noted as a writer and Abbot of Cluny.

Several famous Jansenists were natives of Clermont: Blaise Pascal, author of the "Pensées" (1623-62); the Arnauld family, and Soanen (1647-1740), Bishop of Senez, famous for his stubborn opposition to the Bull "Unigenitus". On the other hand the city of Riom was the birthplace of Sirmond, the learned Jesuit (1559-1651), confessor to Louis XIII and editor of the ancient councils of Gaul. Other natives worthy of mention in church history were the Abbé Delille, poet (1738-1813), and Montlosier, the publicist (1755-1838), famous for his memoir against the Jesuits and to whom Bishop Ferou refused ecclesiastical burial. Pope Urban II came to Clermont in 1095 to preside at the organization of the First Crusade; Pope Paschal II visited the city in 1106, Callistus II in 1120, Innocent II in 1130, Alexander III in 1164, and, in 1166, St. Thomas Becket. It was also at Clermont that, in 1262, in presence of St. Louis, the marriage of Philip the Bold and Isabella of Aragon was solemnized. The cathedral of Clermont, dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is not of equal archæological importance with the church of Notre-Dame du Port, which stands to-day as it was rebuilt in the eleventh century, and is one of the most beautiful of Romanesque churches in the Auvergnese style. One of the capitals in Notre-Dame du Port, ascribed to the eleventh century, is among the most ancient sculptured representations of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. This cathedral is much frequented as a place of pilgrimage, as are also Notre Dame d'Orcival and Notre Dame de Vassivière at Besse. The "dry mass" (without Consecration or Communion) was celebrated in the Diocese of Clermont as late as the seventeenth century.

Before the Law of 1901 was carried into effect, there were in the Diocese: Capuchins, Jesuits, Marists, Fathers of the African Missions, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, and Sulpicians. Several local congregations of women are engaged in teaching, among them being the religious of Notre-Dame de Clermont, founded in 1835, with mother-house at Chamalières; the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Good Shepherd, founded by Massillon in 1723, with mother-house at Clermont; the Sisters of the Heart of the Infant Jesus, mother-house at Lezoux; and the Sisters of Mercy, founded in 1806, with mother-house at Billom. The diocese has the following religious institutions: 2 maternity hospitals, 40 infant schools, 1 school for the blind, 4 schools for deaf mutes, 3 boys' orphanages, 16 girls' orphanages, 2 houses of refuge and of protection, 23 hospitals and hospices, 35 houses for nursing sisters, and 1 insane asylum. Statistics for the end of 1905 (the close of the period under the Concordat) show a population of 529,181, with 54 parishes, 447 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 175 curacies remunerated by the State.

GREGORY OF TOURS, Historia Francorum; IDEM, Vitœ Patrum (nine out of twenty being devoted to saints of Auvergne); Gallia Christiana (nova) (1715), II, 222-316, 416-418; Instrumenta, 73-128; RÉSIE, Histoire de L'Eglise d'Auvergne (3 vols., Clermont-Ferrand, 1855); MORIN, L'Auvergne chrét. du premier siècle à 1880 (Roanne, 1880); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux, I, 20, II, 31-39, 117-22; DESDEVIZES DU DÉSERT, Bibliographie du centenaire des croisades à Clermont-Ferrand (Clermont-Ferrand, 1895); CHEVALIER, Rép. des sources hist., Topo-Bibl., s. v.

GEORGES GOYAU.

Pope St. Cletus

This name is only another form for Anacletus, the second successor of St. Peter. It is true that the Liberian Catalogue, a fourth-century list of popes, so called because it ends with Pope Liberius (d. 366), contains both names, as if they were different persons. But this is an error, owing evidently to the existence of two forms of the same name, one an abbreviation of the other. In the aforesaid catalogue the papal succession is: Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus. This catalogue, however, is the only authority previous to the sixth century (Liber Pontificalis) for distinguishing two popes under the names of Cletus and Anacletus.

The "Carmen adv. Marcionem" is of the latter half of the fourth century, and its papal list probably depends on the Liberian Catalogue. The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (q. v.) mentions both "Aninclitus" and "Clitus" (23 and 31 December), but on each occasion these names are found in a list of popes; hence the days mentioned cannot be looked on as specially consecrated to these two persons. Apart from these lists, all other ancient papal lists, from the second to the fourth century, give as follows the immediate succession of St. Peter: Linos, Anegkletos, Klemes (Linus, Anencletus, Clemens), and this succession is certainly the right one. It is that found in St. Irenæus and in the chronicles of the second and third centuries. Both Africa and the Orient adhered faithfully to this list, which is also given in the very ancient Roman Canon of the Mass, except that in the latter Cletus is the form used, and the same occurs in St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and in many fifth- and sixth-century lists. This second successor of St. Peter governed the Roman Church from about 76 to about 88. The "Liber Pontificalis" says that his father was Emelianus and that Cletus was a Roman by birth, and belonged to the quarter known as the Vicus Patrici. It also tells us that he ordained twenty-five priests, and was buried in Vaticano near the body of St. Peter.

There is historical evidence for only the last of these statements. The feast of St. Cletus falls, with that of St. Marcellinus, on 26 April; this date is already assigned to it in the first edition of the "Liber Pontificalis". (See CLEMENT I, SAINT, POPE.)

L IGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I: St. Clement of Rome (2nd ed., London, 1890), 201-345; D UCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, I, LXIX-LXX, 2-3, 52-53; H ARNACK, Gesch. der alt-christl. Lit. bis Eusebius, II-I, 144-202; Acta SS., April, III, 409-11; DE S MEDT, Dissertationes selectæ in hist. eccles. (Ghent, 1876), 300-04.

J.P. KIRSCH

Cleveland

The Diocese of Cleveland (Clevelandensis), established 23 April, 1847, comprises all that part of Ohio lying north of the southern limits of the Counties of Columbiana, Stark, Wayne, Ashland, Richland, Crawford, Wyandot, Hancock, Allen, and Van Wert, its territory covering thirty-six counties, an area of 15,032 square miles.

EARLY HISTORY

The Jesuit Fathers Potier and Bonnecamp were the first missionaries to visit the territory now within the limits of Ohio. They came from Quebec in 1749 to evangelize the Huron Indians living along the Vermilion and Sandusky Rivers in Northern Ohio. Two years later they received the assistance of another Jesuit, Father de la Richardie, who had come from Detroit, Michigan, to the southern shore of Lake Erie. Shortly after his arrival he induced a part of the Huron tribe to settle near the present site of Sandusky, where he erected a chapel -- the first place of Catholic worship within the present limits of Ohio. These Hurons assumed the name of Wyandots when they left the parent tribe. Although checked for a time by Father Potier, they took part in the Indian-French War. Soon they became implicated in the conspiracy of Pontiac, in consequence of which the Jesuits were unjustly forced in 1752 to leave the territory of Ohio, Father Potier being the last Jesuit missionary among the Western Hurons. The Indian missions, established and cared for by the Jesuits for nearly three years, had now to depend exclusively on the chance visits of the priests attached to the military posts in Canada and Southern Michigan. Despite the spiritual deprivation which this implied, the Hurons (Wyandots) kept the Faith for many years, although their descendants were ultimately lost to the Church through the successful efforts of Protestant missionaries. After the forced retirement of the Jesuits no systematic efforts were made to continue the missionary work begun by them until 1795, when the Rev. Edmund Burke, a secular priest from Quebec, came as chaplain of the military post at Fort Meigs, near the present site of Maumee. Father Burke remained at the post until February, 1797, ministering to the Catholic soldiers at the fort, and endeavouring though with little success, to Christianize the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, in the neighbourhood.

In the meantime the See of Bardstown was erected (1810), embracing the entire State of Ohio, as well as Michigan and Kentucky. Bishop Flaget sent (1817) the Rev. Edward Fenwick, O.P. (later first Bishop of Cincinnati), from the Dominican monastery at Somerset, Ohio, to attend the few families who had settled in Columbiana and Stark Counties, in the north-eastern part of Ohio. From that time forward he and other Dominican Fathers, especially the Revs. Nicholas D. Young and John A. Hill, continued to visit at regular intervals the Catholic families in that section of Ohio (notably in Columbiana, Stark, Mahoning, and Wayne Counties), then very sparsely settled. It is, therefore, from this period that Catholicity in Northern Ohio really dates its beginning. In the course of time the Dominican Fathers gradually gave up to the secular clergy their pastoral charges in the above-named counties until, in 1842, they withdrew altogether. St. John's, Canton, was their last mission. Meanwhile the central portion of Northern Ohio (Huron, Erie, Sandusky, and Seneca Counties) had received a considerable influx of Catholic immigrants, principally from Germany. Similar conditions were obtaining elsewhere in the State, and the need of more compact organization to minister to growing wants made Cincinnati an episcopal see in 1822, with the entire State for its jurisdiction. Little seems to have been done, however, for the northern part of the State, and but little could be done, as Catholics were so few, until the advent of its second bishop, John B. Purcell. He succeeded (13 Oct., 1833) the saintly Bishop Fenwick, who, while engaged in a confirmation tour, died at Wooster, Ohio (26 September, 1832) of cholera, then raging in Ohio. In 1834 Bishop Purcell commissioned the Redemptorist Fathers, who had just arrived in America, to take charge of the widely scattered German missions then existing in these counties, and to organize others where needed. The Rev. Francis X. Tschenhens, C.SS.R., was the first priest assigned to this task. Later on he was assisted by other members of his community, among them the Revs. Peter Czakert, Francis Haetscher, Joseph Prost, Simon Saenderl, Louis M. Alig, and John N. Neumann (later Bishop of Philadelphia). The Redemptorists remained in Northern Ohio until November, 1842. They were succeeded, January, 1844, by seven Sanguinist Fathers, (the Revs. Francis S. Brunner, M.A. Meier, J. Wittmer, J. Van den Broek, P.A. Capeder, J. Ringele, and J.B. Jacomet), who came from Europe at that time at the solicitation of Bishop Purcell. They settled at St. Alphonsus church, Peru, Huron County, whence they attended all the missions formerly under the care of the Redemptorists. They also accepted charge of the scattered missions in Lorain, Medina, and Wayne Counties, besides attending the Catholic Germans in Cleveland. Their advent was hailed with delight wherever they went, and their priestly labours were signally blessed. Under their vigilant care religion flourished, so that the healthy growth of Catholicity in Northern Ohio may justly, under God, be ascribed in large measure to their untiring zeal and self-sacrifice.

The secular clergy are no less deserving of mention, as they, too, laboured in this part of the Lord's vineyard, amid trials and difficulties, often side by side with their brethren of the religious orders, and more often alone in the widespread missions of Northern Ohio. They did yeoman service, blazing the way for those who succeeded them, and laying the foundations for many missions, which have long since developed into vigorous and prosperous congregations. The first of these secular clergy was the Rev. Ignatius J. Mullen of Cincinnati. Between 1824 and 1834 he frequently attended the missions in Stark, Columbiana, Seneca, and Sandusky Counties. Other pioneer secular priests of prominence were the Revs. Francis Marshall (1827), John M. Henni (later Bishop and Archbishop of Milwaukee), resident pastor of Canton (1831-34), Edmund Quinn, at Tiffin (1831-35), William J. Horstmann, at Glandorf (1835-43), James Conlon, at Dungannon (1834-53), Matthias Wuerz, at Canton (1835-45), John Dillon, first resident pastor of Cleveland (1835-36), Basil Schorb, in charge of missions in Stark, Wayne, and Portage Counties (1837-43), Patrick O'Dwyer, second pastor of Cleveland (1836-38), where he built the first church in 1838, Michael McAleer, in Stark and Columbiana Counties (1838-40), Joseph McNamee, at Tiffin (1839-47), Projectus J. Machebeuf (later Bishop of Denver), at Tiffin and Sandusky (1839-51), Amadeus Rappe (later first Bishop of Cleveland), stationed at Maumee for a short time, and then, as first resident pastor, at Toledo (1840-47), Louis de Goesbriand (later Bishop of Burlington, Vermont), at Louisville, Toledo, and Cleveland (1840-53), Peter McLaughlin, resident pastor of Cleveland (1840-46), Maurice Howard, at Cleveland and later at Tiffin (1842-52), John J. Doherty, at Canton (1843-48), John H. Luhr, at Canton, and later at Cleveland (1844-58), John O. Bredeick, founder of Delphos and its first pastor (1844-58), Cornelius Daley, first resident pastor of Akron, and later stationed at Doylestown (1844-47), Philip Foley, at Massillon and Wooster (1847-48). The Rev. Stephen Badin, proto-priest of the thirteen original United States, and the Rev. Edward T. Collins occasionally came from Cincinnati, between 1835 and 1837, to attend the missions in Northern Ohio, the former those of Canton, Fremont, and Tiffin, and the latter those of Dungannon, Toledo, and along the Maumee River. The first permanent church in Northern Ohio was erected near the present village of Dungannon, in 1820, under the direction of the Rev. Edward Fenwick, O.P., the "Apostle of Ohio," and later the first Bishop of Cincinnati. Until 1847 churches of brick or wood were built in the following places: Canton (St. John's, 1823), Chippewa (1828), Randolph, Canal Fulton (1831), Tiffin (St. Mary's, 1832), Glandorf, Navarre, New Riegel (1833), Peru (1834), Louisville, La Porte (1835), Shelby Settlement (1836), McCutchenville (1837), Thompson (1839), Cleveland, East Liverpool (1840), Toledo, Maumee, New Washington, Norwalk (1841), Sandusky (Holy Angels), Landeck, Liberty, Liverpool, Sheffield (St. Stephen's, 1842), Delphos, Massillon (St. Mary's), Akron (St. Vincent's), Fremont (St. Anne's), French Creek (1844), Canton (St. Peter's), Harrisburg, New Berlin, Tiffin (St. Joseph's), Providence (1845), Sherman (1846), Poplar Ridge (1847).

From 1922 until October, 1847, Northern Ohio was part of the Diocese of Cincinnati, of which the first bishop was Edward Fenwick (1822-32), and its second bishop, John B. Purcell, who succeeded in October, 1833. He petitioned the Holy See, in 1846, for a division of his jurisdiction, then comprising the entire State of Ohio. The petition was granted (23 April, 1847), by the appointment of the Rev. Louis Amadeus Rappe as the first Bishop of Cleveland, and the assignment to his jurisdiction of "all that part of Ohio lying north of 40 degrees and 41 minutes, N.L." As this division intersected several counties it was changed in January, 1849, to the present limits, as described at the beginning of this article.

BISHOPS OF CLEVELAND

(1) LOUIS AMADEUS RAPPE, consecrated 10th October, 1847, was born 2 Feb., 1801, at Andrehem, France. He was ordained priest at Arras, France, 14 March, 1829. His cathedral church was St. Mary's on the "Flats," Cleveland, the first, and at that time the only, church in his episcopal city. In November, 1852, he completed the present cathedral, an imposing brick structure of Gothic architecture, still ranking with the many fine churches of the diocese. During his administration of the diocese, which ended in August, 1870, he convoked five diocesan synods (1848, 1852, 1854, 1857, 1868). He established the diocesan seminary (1848), St. John's College, Cleveland (1854), St. Louis College, Louisville (1866); these two colleges, however, being closed a few years later, owing to lack of patronage. Under his direction the following educational and charitable institutions were also established: in Cleveland, the Ursuline Academy; St. Vincent's Orphanage, for boys; St. Mary's Orphanage, for girls (1861); St. Joseph's Orphanage, for girls (1862); Charity Hospital (1865); House of the Good Shepherd (1869); Home for the Aged Poor (1870).

In Toledo, Ursuline Academy (1854), St. Vincent's Orphanage (1855); in Tiffin, Ursuline Academy (1863), St. Francis' Asylum and Home for the Aged (1867). He founded the community of Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine (1851), whose work is the care of orphans, waifs, and the sick. In 1869 he introduced into the diocese the Franciscan and Jesuit Fathers, giving to the former the care of St. Joseph's church, Cleveland, and to the latter St. Mary's, Toledo. Wherever possible he insisted on the support of parish schools. He was a strong advocate of total abstinence, which he practised from the time he was a missionary priest in North-Western Ohio until his death. He never spared himself in the discharge of his manifold and exacting duties. By his affability and disinterestedness he gained the love of his people, as also the respect of his fellow-citizens regardless of creed. He resigned his see in August, 1870, and retired to the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, where he did missionary work almost to the day of his death (8 September, 1877). Between the time of Bishop Rappe's resignation and the appointment of his successor, the Very Rev. Edward Hannin administered the affairs of the diocese.

(2) RICHARD GILMOUR, consecrated 14 April, 1872. In November of the same year he convoked the Sixth Diocesan Synod, in which many of the statutes by which the diocese is at present governed were promulgated. It also embodied considerable of the legislature of previous synods, notably that of 1868. This synod made provision for a diocesan fund for the support of the seminary, bishop, etc., and another for the support of sick and disabled priests, by annual assessments on the parishes of the diocese. Among other diocesan statutes published then were those urging anew the support of parochial schools, regulating the financial affairs of parishes, and the manner of electing parish councilmen and of conveying church property. Bishop Gilmour established "The Catholic Universe," its first issue appearing 4 July, 1874. In 1875 he organized "The Catholic Central Association," composed of representatives from all the parishes and church societies in Cleveland; its influence for the betterment of social and religious conditions and for the defence of Catholic interests was soon felt not only in Cleveland, but elsewhere as well, and continued during almost its entire existence of nearly eighteen years. It also proved a tower of strength to its organizer in his forced contention for the civic rights of Catholics, in the face of bitter opposition from bigotry and a hostile press. In 1875 the Catholic school property in Cleveland was placed on the tax duplicate in spite of the decision (1874) of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that such property was not taxable. A suit of restraint was entered by the bishop, and finally carried to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed its former decision. The present episcopal residence was begun in 1874 and completed two years later. It serves also as the residence of the cathedral clergy.

In 1872 the Sisters of St. Joseph, and in 1874 the Sisters of Notre Dame, were welcomed to the diocese. Both communities have flourishing academies in connexion with their convents, besides supplying many parish schools with efficient teachers. The same also is the case with the Ursulines of Cleveland, Tiffin, Toledo, and Youngstown, and the Sisters of the Humility of Mary.

The following institutions were established between 1873 and 1891: St. Anne's Asylum and House of Maternity, Cleveland (1873); Ursuline Convent, Youngstown (1874); St. Vincent's Hospital, Toledo (1876); St. Joseph's Franciscan College, Cleveland (1876-80); Convent of Poor Clares (1877); Ursuline Academy, Nottingham (1877); St. Alexis' Hospital, Cleveland (1884); St. Louis' Orphanage, Louisville (1884); Little Sisters of the Poor, Toledo (1885); St. Ignatius' College, Cleveland (1886); St. Joseph's Seminary, for young boys, Nottingham (1886). The diocesan seminary was remodelled and considerably enlarged in 1884-85. A diocesan chancery office was established (1877) for the transaction of the official business of the diocese. In 1878 the first attempt was made to gather historical data in connexion with every parish and institution in the diocese, and in a few years a great mass of matter, covering the history of Catholicity in Northern Ohio and the Diocese of Cleveland as far back as 1817, was collected and is now a part of the diocesan archives. In May, 1882, the Seventh Diocesan Synod was held, which resulted in the legislation at present in force. With the exception of about half a dozen of its 262 statutes, it is in perfect harmony with the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in November, 1884. Like his predecessor, Bishop Gilmour made it obligatory on every parish at all financially able to support a parochial school. In consequence, the Diocese of Cleveland has more parochial schools, in proportion to its number of churches and its population, than any other diocese in the United States, and many of its school buildings vie, in size, appointments, and beauty of architecture, with the public-school buildings. With very few exceptions the parish schools are in charge of teachers belonging to male and female religious communities, Bishop Gilmour had an eventful episcopate, lasting nineteen years. He left his strong, aggressive personality indelibly stamped, upon the diocese he had ruled. During the interim between his death (13 April, 1891) and the appointment of his successor, the Rev. Monsignor F.M. Boff was administrator of the diocese.

(3) IGNATIUS FREDERICK HORSTMANN, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, was appointed to succeed Bishop Gilmour. Born in Philadelphia, 16 December, 1840, after graduating from the Central High School, he attended St. Joseph's College and then entered the diocesan Seminary. In 1860 he was sent by Bishop Wood to the American College, Rome, where he was ordained priest, 10 June, 1865. In the following year he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity and returning to Philadelphia became a professor in St. Charles's Seminary where he remained eleven years and was then appointed rector of St. Mary's church, Philadelphia. In 1885 he was made chancellor. His consecration as Bishop of Cleveland took place in Philadelphia, 25 February, 1892. He died suddenly of heart disease on 13 May, 1908, while on an official visit to Canton, Ohio. He had proved himself a zealous pastor of souls, a wise and prudent ruler, a fearless defender of truth. Among the noteworthy accomplishments of his episcopate were the founding of Loyola High School, Cleveland (1902); St. John's College, Toledo (1898); and the establishment of the diocesan band of missionaries -- the first in any diocese of the United States. He was foremost in encouraging every missionary movement, and his zeal for Christian education was one of the dominant purposes of his life. He served as a trustee of the Catholic University and in spite of many duties found time to contribute to the "American Catholic Review" and other periodicals and to edit the American edition of "The Catholic Doctrine As Defined by the Council of Trent" and "Potter's Catholic Bible."

A few months before he died he asked for an auxiliary bishop, with jurisdiction over the growing foreign population, especially of the Slav races, in the diocese. The Rev. Joseph M. Koudelka, rector of St. Michael's church, Cleveland, was named, 29 Nov., 1907, and consecrated, 25 Feb., 1908, being the first auxiliary bishop of special jurisdiction appointed for the United States. He was born in Bohemia, 15 August, 1852, and emigrated to the United States when sixteen years of age. After making his studies at St. Francis's Seminary, Milwaukee, he was ordained priest, 8 October, 1875. He was for some time editor of "Hlas" (Voice), a Bohemian Catholic weekly paper, and compiled a series of textbooks for Bohemian Catholic schools.

RECENT TIMES

In 1894 the "St. Vincent's Union," composed of the laity who contribute towards the support of St. Vincent's Orphanage, Cleveland, was organized; and it has proved of great financial assistance to that institution. In 1893 Bishop Horstmann opened the Calvary Cemetery, which covers nearly 250 acres, near the southern limits of Cleveland. About fifty acres of the cemetery's whole area are improved. In 1892 the Cleveland Apostolate was established, an association of secular priests, having for its object the giving of lectures and missions to non-Catholics. Besides making many converts this association has removed much prejudice and brought about a kindlier feeling towards the Church and its members. The Golden Jubilee of the diocese was celebrated, 13 October, 1897. It was a memorable event, observed with great religious pomp in Cleveland, Toledo, and elsewhere. At the bishop's solicitation the Jesuit Fathers of Toledo opened (September, 1898) St. John's College. In the same city a home for fallen women was established (1906) by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. A fine school building was erected (1906) in connexion with St. Vincent's Asylum, Cleveland, in which the boys have every facility for a thorough education. The diocese is in a prosperous condition, spiritually and financially, and healthy growth is apparent in every direction.

CAUSES OF GROWTH

The growth of the diocesan population down to 1860 was due chiefly to emigration from Ireland and Germany. Since 1870 it has been receiving other large accessions, but from quite another source. The Slav race, manifold in its divisions, has been pouring in, more notably since 1895. The early immigrants were drawn hither by the market for their labour which the opening of a new country offered. The Irish found employment on public works, such as the construction of canals and railroads; the Germans turned more to agriculture. The various branches of the Slav race are engaged in foundries, mills, and factories, and many are also employed as longshoremen and at common labour. The same holds also for the Italians, of whom there is a large percentage. Nearly all the recent immigration has settled in cities like Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, Lorain, and Ashtabula, where employment is had in abundance and at a fair wage.

STATISTICS

In December, 1907, the clergy numbered 388, of whom 315 were diocesan priests and 73 regulars (Sanguinists, Franciscans, and Jesuits). There were 21 Brothers of Mary and 5 Christian Brothers, teaching in 6 parochial schools. The Sisters (Sanguinists, Ursulines, Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine, Sisters of Notre Dame, Franciscans, Sisters of St. Joseph, Ladies of the Sacred Heart of Mary, Sisters of the Humility of Mary, Grey Nuns, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Poor Clares, Little Sisters of the Poor, Dominicans, Sisters of St. Agnes, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of Loretto, Felician Sisters, Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters-Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) number 1141, of whom 684 teach in 138 parochial schools. The parishes with resident pastors number 241; mission churches, 60; parochial schools, 186; attendance, 43,544; 1 diocesan seminary with 96 students; diocesan students in colleges and other seminaries, 45; colleges and academies for boys, 4; attendance, 515 pupils; academies for girls, 11; attendance, 2113 pupils; 9 orphanages and one infant asylum, total number of inmates, 1251; hospitals, 9; homes for the aged, 3; Houses of Good Shepherd, 2.

The Catholic population is about 330,000, and is composed of 13 nationalities, exclusive of native Americans, viz., Irish, German, Slovak, Polish, Bohemian, Magyar, Slovenian, Italian, Lithuanian, Croatian, Rumanian, Ruthenian, Syrian.

SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854), 293, and in Catholic Universe (Cleveland, 13 September, 1881); IDEM, Hist. of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1889, 1892); Leben u. Wirken des hochw. Franz Sales Brunner, C.PP.S.; The Catholic Miscellany (Charleston, S.C., 1824-30); The Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati, 1831-47); HOUCK, A History of Catholicity in Northern Ohio and Diocese of Cleveland (Cleveland, 1902); IDEM, The Church in Northern Ohio (Cleveland, 1889); Reminiscences of the Right Rev. P.J. Machebeuf in the Catholic Universe (18 Oct., 1883, and 31 Jan., 1889); Reminiscences of the Right Rev. Louis de Goesbriand in The Catholic Universe (27 December, 1888.)

GEORGE F. HOUCK

Josse Clichtove

(Jodocus Clichtovaeus).

A theologian, b. 1472 at Nieuport (Flanders); d. 1543 at Chartres (France). He began his studies at Louvain and went to Paris for his philosophical and theological studies. After receiving the doctorate in theology (1506) he was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In 1515 he was asked to direct the studies of Louis Guillard, the Bishop-elect of Tournai, and four years later accompanied him to this latter place. After a short stay there, he returned to Paris, and in 1527 to Chartres, whither Guillard had been transferred. He took an active part in the Council of Sens, convoked at Paris by Cardinal Duprat, and he gathered in a volume the various arguments brought forward against the Protestants. A champion of reform in philosophical and theological studies during the earlier part of his life, he devoted himself later almost exclusively to combating the doctrines of Luther. His works are numerous and belong to almost every department of theology and philosophy. He began with commentaries on many Aristotelean treatises: logic, natural philosophy, ethics, arithmetic, and geometry. He also wrote studies on several books of Holy Scripture, edited and commented the writings of some of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Among his original works must be mentioned "De verâ nobilitate opusculum" (Paris, 1512); "Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum" (Paris, 1516); "De vitâ et moribus sacerdotum" (Paris, 1519), and several other works of instruction and edification; "Antilutherus" (Paris, 1524); "Propugnaculum ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos" (Paris, 1516); "De Sacramento Eucharistiae contra AEcolampadium" (Paris, 1526); "Compendium veritatum ad fidem pertinentium contra erroneas Lutheranorum assertiones ex dictis et actis in concilio provinciali Senonensi apud Parisios celebrato" (Paris, 1529); "Sermones" (Paris, 1534); "Convulsio calumniarum Ulrichi Veleni quibus S. Petrum nunquam Romae fuisse cavillatur" (Paris, 1535).

Clerval, De Judoci Clichtovei. . .vita et operibus (Paris, 1895); Idem in Dict. de theol. cath., III, 236; Van Der Haeghen, Bibliographie des oeuvres de Josse Clichtove in Bibl. Belgica (Ghent, 1888).

C.A. DUBRAY

William Clifford

(Alias Mansell), divine, d. 30 April, 1670; he was the son of Henry Clifford, by his wife Elizabeth Thimelby, who as a widow joined the English Augustinian nuns at Louvain, and died, aged about seventy-seven, 3 September, 1642. Through humility Clifford never asserted his right to the Barony of Cumberland. After education and ordination at Douai, he came on the English mission. As vice-president, he helped the English College at Lisbon through difficult times, and became superior of Tournay College (Paris), assigned by Cardinal Richelieu to the English clergy. He evaded being made bishop in 1660, declined in 1670 the presidency of Douai, and closed his life in the Hopital des Incurables in Paris. Clifford's works are: "Christian Rules proposed to a vertuous Soule" (Paris, 1615), dedicated to Mrs Ursula Clifford; "The Spirituall Combat", translated by R.R. (Paris, 1656), dedicated to Abbot Montague; "Little Manual of Poore Man's Dayly Devotion" (2nd edition, Paris, 1670), often reprinted; "Observations upon Kings' Reigns since the Conquest" (MS.); "Collections concerning Chief Points of Controversy" (MS.)

Little Manual, 5th ed., preface; Dodd, Church History, III, 297; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Catholics, I, 514, s.v.; Idem, Lisbon College, 9 and 189; Cooper in Dict. Of Nat. Biog., s.v.; Chronicle of St. Monica's, Louvain (Edinburgh, 1904), I, 127; Kirk, Biographies (London, 1908), s.v.

PATRICK RYAN

Clifton

(Cliftoniensis).

Diocese of England, consisting of Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, and Wiltshire. It was founded by Pius IX when he restored the English hierarchy in 1850. Previously to that the diocese formed part of the Western District, one of the four vicariates established by Innocent XI in 1688, and including Wales and the six south-western counties of England. In 1840 Wales became a separate vicariate, and thenceforth the district consisted of the English counties only. As the vicars Apostolic resided chiefly at Bath in Somerset, when the district was divided into the two dioceses of Clifton and Plymouth, it was fitting that the last Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, Dr. Joseph William Hendren, O.S.F. (1791-1866), consecrated in 1848, should become the first Bishop of Clifton. Thus the diocese is, in a special sense, the representative of the old vicariate. In this capacity the Bishop of Clifton retains possession of the archives of the Western District, one of the most important sources of information for the history of the Church in England from 1780 to 1850. The papers earlier in date perished during the Gordon Riots in 1780. Besides these valuable archives there is at Bishop's House an interesting series of portraits of the vicars Apostolic of the Western District and of the bishops of Clifton.

A year after the foundation of the new diocese Dr. Hendren was translated to the See of Nottingham and was succeeded by Dr. Thomas Burgess (1791-1854). On 28 June, 1852, a cathedral chapter, consisting of a provost and ten canons, was erected. On the death of Bishop Burgess, 27 Nov., 1854, there was a long vacancy, and the administration of the diocese was given provisionally to Archbishop Errington, coadjutor to Cardinal Wiseman. This arrangement lasted until Feb., 1857, when the Hon. and Rev. William Joseph Hugh Clifford (1823-1893), son of the seventh Lord Clifford, was appointed bishop, being consecrated by Pope Pius IX in person. His long pontificate lasted for thirty-six years, ending with his death, 14 Aug., 1893. His successor was Dr. William Robert Brownlow (1836-1901), famous as an archaeologist, and whose well-known work on the catacombs, written conjointly with Dr. James Spencer Northcote, is a classical work of reference. Dr. Brownlow died 9 Nov., 1901, and was succeeded by the Rt. Rev. George Ambrose Burton, consecrated 1 May, 1902. The diocese, which is under the patronage of "Our Lady Conceived without Sin" and Sts. Peter and Paul, is divided into six rural deaneries. There are 57 public churches and chapels, besides 24 private chapels belonging to communities. The clergy number about 50 secular priests and about 80 regulars, the latter including the Benedictines of the famous abbey and school at Downside. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Cistercians, and Jesuits are also represented in the diocese. The College of Sts. Peter and Paul, Prior Park, founded by Benedictines and afterwards conducted by secular priests, is now in the hands of the Fathers of the Society of the Holy Ghost.

Catholic Directories (1850-1907); Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy (1877).

EDWIN BURTON

José Climent

Spanish bishop, b. at Castellon de la Plana (Valencia), 1706; d. there 25 Nov., 1781. Distinguished for his charities, educational efforts, eloquence, and exemplary life, he studied and afterwards professed theology at the University of Valencia, laboured for several years as parish priest, and was consecrated Bishop of Barcelona in 1766; he resigned his see in 1775. His episcopal activity was directed to the founding of hospitals, the establishing of free schools, and the diffusion of knowledge among the people by means of low-priced publications. He translated into Spanish several works, among them Fleury's "Moeurs des Israelites et des Chrétiens". His pastoral instructions contributed largely to his fame. That of 1769, on the renewal of ecclesiastical studies, caused him to be denounced to the court of Charles III for having eulogized the Church of Utrecht; but a commission composed of archbishops, bishops, and heads of religious orders, appointed to examine his case, returned a decision favourable to the prelate. The sway he held over his people was shown by his success in quelling a dangerous uprising in Barcelona against military conscription; but this only served still further to render him obnoxious to a suspicious court. He refused, on conscientious grounds, a promotion to the wealthy See of Malaga, and withdrew to his native place. His life was published in Barcelona in 1785.

Michaud, Biog. Univers, (Paris, 1843-66).

JOHN H. STAPLETON

St. Margaret Clitherow

Martyr, called the "Pearl of York", born about 1556; died 25 March 1586. She was a daughter of Thomas Middleton, Sheriff of York (1564-5), a wax-chandler; married John Clitherow, a wealthy butcher and a chamberlain of the city, in St. Martin's church, Coney St., 8 July, 1571, and lived in the Shambles, a street still unaltered. Converted to the Faith about three years later, she became most fervent, continually risking her life by harbouring and maintaining priests, was frequently imprisoned, sometimes for two years at a time, yet never daunted, and was a model of all virtues. Though her husband belonged to the Established Church, he had a brother a priest, and Margaret provided two chambers, one adjoining her house and a second in another part of the city, where she kept priests hidden and had Mass continually celebrated through the thick of the persecution. Some of her priests were martyred, and Margaret who desired the same grace above all things, used to make secret pilgrimages by night to York Tyburn to pray beneath the gibbet for this intention. Finally arrested on 10 March, 1586, she was committed to the castle. On 14 March, she was arraigned before Judges Clinch and Rhodes and several members of the Council of the North at the York assizes. Her indictment was that she had harboured priests, heard Mass, and the like; but she refused to plead, since the only witnesses against her would be her own little children and servants, whom she could not bear to involve in the guilt of her death. She was therefore condemned to the peine forte et dure, i.e. to be pressed to death. "God be thanked, I am not worthy of so good a death as this", she said. Although she was probably with child, this horrible sentence was carried out on Lady Day, 1586 (Good Friday according to New Style). She had endured an agony of fear the previous night, but was now calm, joyous, and smiling. She walked barefooted to the tolbooth on Ousebridge, for she had sent her hose and shoes to her daughter Anne, in token that she should follow in her steps. She had been tormented by the ministers and even now was urged to confess her crimes. "No, no, Mr. Sheriff, I die for the love of my Lord Jesu", she answered. She was laid on the ground, a sharp stone beneath her back, her hands stretched out in the form of a cross and bound to two posts. Then a door was placed upon her, which was weighted down till she was crushed to death. Her last words during an agony of fifteen minutes, were "Jesu! Jesu! Jesu! have mercy on me!" Her right hand is preserved at St. Mary's Convent, York, but the resting-place of her sacred body is not known. Her sons Henry and William became priests, and her daughter Anne a nun at St. Ursula's, Louvain.

Her life, written by her confessor, John Mush, exists in two versions. The earlier has been edited by Father John Morris, S.J., in his "Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers", third series (London, 1877). The later manuscript, now at York Convent, was published by W. Nicholson, of Thelwall Hall, Cheshire (London, Derby, 1849), with portrait: "Life and Death of Margaret Clitherow the martyr of York". It also contains the "History of Mr. Margaret Ward and Mrs. Anne Line, Martyrs".

[ Note: St. Margaret Clitherow was canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970.]

BEDE CAMM

Clogher

DIOCESE OF CLOGHER (CLOGHERENSIS)

A suffragan of Armagh, Ireland, which comprises the County Monaghan, almost the whole of Fermanagh, the southern portion of Tyrone, and parts of Donegal, Louth, and Cavan. It takes its name from Clogher, the seat of the Prince of Oriel, with whose territory the old Diocese of Clogher was, practically speaking, coextensive. The see was founded by St. Patrick, who appointed one of his household, St. Macarten, as first bishop. There does not seem to be any evidence that St. Patrick governed Clogher as a distinct diocese before taking up his residence at Armagh, as is stated by Jocelyn. There is great difficulty in tracing the succession of bishops in Clogher, as indeed in every Irish diocese from the sixth to the eleventh century, on account of the confusion of the bishops with the abbots of the monastic establishments; the difficulty is increased in Clogher in view of the diversity existing between the lists as given in the Irish Annals, and the "Register of Clogher", compiled by Patrick Culin, Bishop of Clogher (1519-34), and Roderick Cassidy, archdeacon of the diocese. The "Register of Clogher" is of very little historical value.

In 1241 Henry III ordered that Clogher should be united to Armagh, on account of the poverty of both dioceses, but this was not carried out, though under Bishop David O'Brogan large portions of Tyrone were cut off from Clogher and given to Ardstraw (now united with Derry), while the greater part of the present County Louth, including Dundalk, Drogheda, and Ardee, was taken over by Armagh. In 1535 Bishop Odo, or Hugh O'Cervallan, was appointed to the See of Clogher by Paul III, and on the submission of his patron Con O'Neill to Henry VIII, this prelate seems to have accepted the new teaching and was superseded by Raymond MacMahon, 1546. From his time there are two lines of bishops in Clogher, the Catholic and the Protestant. The apostate Miler Magrath was appointed Protestant bishop by Queen Elizabeth in 1570, but on his promotion to Cashel, resigned Clogher in the same year. Heber or Emer MacMahon (1643-50) took a prominent part in the war of the Irish Confederates, and on the death of Owen Roe O'Neill, was chosen general of the Confederate forces. He was defeated at Scariffhollis near Letterkenny, taken prisoner by Coote, and beheaded at Enniskillen. Owing to the persecutions of the Irish Catholics, Clogher was governed by vicars during the periods 1612-43, 1650-71, 1687-1707, 1713-27. The chapter of Clogher was allowed to lapse, but towards the end of the eighteenth century it was re-established by papal Brief.

A very important provincial synod was held at Clones in 1670 by Oliver Plunkett, Archbishop of Armagh (see Moran, Life of Plunkett). The most remarkable shrines of the diocese are at St. Patrick's, Lough Derg, near Pettigo, still frequented by thousands of pilgrims from all parts of the world (see ST. PATRICK'S PURGATORY); Devenish Island in Lough Erne (see McKenna, Devenish, its History and Antiquities, Dublin, 1897); Innismacsaint, also in Lough Erne, where the "Annals of Ulster" were composed; Lisgoole, Clones, and Clogher. The most celebrated works of ancient ecclesiastical art connected with the diocese are the Domnach Airigid, a shrine enclosing a copy of the Gospels, said to have been given by St. Patrick to St. Macarten, and the Cross of Clogher, both of them now in the National Museum in Dublin. The Catholic population of the diocese is 101,162, distributed in forty parishes and ministered to by about 100 priests.

JAMES MacCAFFREY

Cloister

The English equivalent of the Latin word clausura (from claudere, "to shut up"). This word occurs in Roman law in the sense of rampart, barrier, [cf. Code of Justinian, 1. 2 sec. 4; De officiis Praef. Praet. Africae (1, 27), 1. 4 De officiis mag. officiorum (I, 31)]. In the "Concordia Regularum" of St. Benedict of Aniane, c. xli, sec. 11, we find it in the sense of "case", or "cupboard" (Migne, P.L., CIII, 1057). In modern ecclesiastical usage, clausura signifies, materially, an enclosed space for religious retirement; formally, it stands for the legal restrictions opposed to the free egress of those who are cloistered or enclosed and to the free entry, or free introduction, of outsiders within the limits of the material clausura.

I. SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING LEGISLATION

The actual legislation distinguishes between religious orders and institutes with simple vows; institutes of men and those of women.

(1) RELIGIOUS ORDERS

(a) Male

Material Clausura.

According to the present common law every convent or monastery of regulars must, on its completion, be encloistered. A convent is defined as a building which serves as a fixed dwelling-place where religious live according to their rule. According to the common opinion of jurists (Piat, "'Praelectiones juris Regularis", I, 344, n, 4; Wernz, "Jus Decretalium" 658, n. 479) the houses where only two or three religious dwell permanently, and obseve their rule as they can, are subject to this law; it is not necessary that the religious be in a number which secures them the privilege of exemption from the bishop's jurisdiction. The Congregation of Propaganda seems to have in this opinion its own, in decreeing that, in missionary countries, the law of cloister applies to the religious houses which belong to the mission, and which serve as a fixed dwelling for even two or three regular missionaries of the Latin Rite (Collectanea Propagandae Fidei, Replies of 26 Aug., 1780, and of 5 March, 1787, n. 410 and 412, 1st edit., n. 545 and 587, 2d ed). On the other hand, the law of cloister does not apply to houses which are simply hired by religious, and which cannot therefore he looked upon as fixed and definitive homes, nor to the Villa-houses to which the religious go for recreation on fixed days or for a few weeks every year.

Strictly speaking, the whole enclosed space -- house and garden -- ought to be encloistered. Custom, however, allows the erection, at the entrance to the convent, of reception rooms to which women may be admitted. These reception rooms should he isolated from the interior of the convent, and the religious should not have free access to them. The church choir, and even the sacristy, when it is strictly contiguous to the church, are neutral territory, here women may enter, and the religious are free to go thither without special permission. It may be asked whether a strictly continuous material barrier is a necessary part of the clausura. Lehmkuhl (in Kirchenlex., s.v. Clausura) is of the opinion that a door which can be locked should separate the cloistered from the other parts of a house of religious. Passerini, however, thinks (De hominum statibus, III, 461, n. 376) that any intelligible sign suffices, provided it sufflciently indicates the beginning of the cloistered part. And even in the Roman law, the clausurae were sometimes fictitious. Finally, it may be added that it is for the provincial superior to fix the limits of the cloister and the point at which it begins, in comformity with the usages of his order and with the local needs; of course his power is limited by the dispositions of the law.

Formal Clausura.

Obstacle to the Free Egress of the Religious. The cloistered religious may not go outside their material cloister without permission, still, the religious man who transgresses this prohibition does not incur any ecclesiastical censure. In two cases, however, he would commit a grave sin: if his absence were prolonged (i.e. exceeding two or three days); and if he should go out by night. Going out at night without permission is usually a reserved case. But what constitutes going out by night? The present writer is of the opinion that the common estimation (which may vary in different countries) defines it. It consists in leaving the cloister without a good and serious motive, at a late hour, when people would be surprised to meet a religious outside his monastery. Canonical legislation carefully provides that religious, when not employed in the functions of the sacred ministry, shall reside in monasteries. The Council of Trent had already forbidden them to leave the monastery without permission under pretext of meeting their superiors. If they are sent to follow a university course, they must reside in a religious house. The bishop can and must punish the violators of this law of residence (Sess. XXIV, De Reg. et Mon., c. iv). Certain decrees of reform, primarily intended for Italy alone, but probably extended by usage, specially forbid religious to go to Rome without permission of the superior general.

Obstacle to the Entrance of Outsiders

Women are strictly forbidden to enter the encloistered portions of a house of male religious. In his "Apostolicae Sedis" (1869), sec. 2, n. 7, Pius IX renewed the sentence of excommunication against violators of this law. This excommunication is absolutely reserved to the Holy See; it affects the women who enter as well as the superior or religious who admits them. The penalty always supposes, of course, a serious sin on the offender's part, but the moralists are very severe in their appreciation of cases. The fact of having just fully crossed the boundary suffices, according to them, for the commission of a serious sin and incurs the penalty. Such severity is comprehensible when a continuous material barrier separates the cloistered and noncloistered parts of the monastery; still, the present writer is rather inclined to exonerate that person from a grievous sin who should just step over the boundary and retire immediately. Where there is no such barrier, somewhat more latitude may be allowed. The law makes exceptions for queens and women of like rank, as, for example, the wife of the president of a republic; such persons may also be accompanied by a suitable retinue. Exception is also sometimes made for notable benefactresses, who must, however, previously obtain a pontifical indult. It should be noted that young girls under twelve do not incur this excommunication, but the religious who should admit them would incur the penalty. It is not certain that young girls under seven come under the law; hence the religious who should admit them would not commit a grave fault or incur the excommunication.

(b) Female

Material Clausura

Those parts of the convent to which the nuns have access are all within the cloister, the choir not excepted. Here the law recognizes no neutral territory. If the convent church be public, the nuns cannot go into those parts accessible to the people. Further, the building should be so constructed that neither the sisters can look outside their enclosure, nor their neighbours see into the court-yards or gardens at the disposal of the sisters. Before establishing a women's convent with cloister, it is the desire of the Holy See -- if it be not a condition of validity -- that the beneplacitum Apostolicum should be obtained; this is a certain obligation for countries, like the United States, which are subject to the Constitution of Leo XIII "Romanos Pontifices", 8 May, 1881. (See also the Letter of 7 Dec., 1901, of the Congregation of Propaganda.)

Formal Clausura

Obstacle to Egress. Under no pretext may be sisters go outside their cloister without a legitimate cause approved of by the bishop. Such is the legislation of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De. Reg. et Mon. c.v.) St. Pius V. restricting still more this law, recognized only three legitimate causes: fire, leprosy, and contagious malady. Without keeping rigorously to this enumeration, we may say that an analogous necessity is always required in order that the bishop may accord the permission. The nuns who transgress this law incur an excommunication reserved absolutely to the Holy See ("Apost. Sedis", see. 2, n. 6).

Obstacle to the Free Entrance of Outsiders.

The law is much more severe for female than for male houses; in fact, even women are rigorously excluded from the cloistered parts. The penalty for those who enter and for those who admit or introduce them is the same -- an excommunication absolutely reserved to the Holy See ("Apost. Sed.", sec. 2, n. 6). The penalty affects all those, and only those, who have reached the age of reason. Hence, in spite of the general terms of the law, it seems probable that the sister who should introduce a child under seven would not incur the ecclesistical censure. This regime, however, admits of exceptions; corporal or spiritual needs demand the physician's or the confessor's presence, the garden must be cultivated, the building kept in repair. Hence general permissions are given to doctors, confessors, workmen, and others. The confessor of the nuns has this permission in virtue of his offlce, so also the bishop who must make the canonical visitation, and the regular superior. If the convent be under the jurisdiction of regulars, outsiders who need to enter the cloister probably require only one permission, that of the regular superior, except where custom requires also the permission of the bishop or of his delegate (St. Alph., "Theol. mor." VII, 224). Benedict XIV, Lehmkuhl, and Piat, basing their view on the jurisprudence of the congregation of the Council, hold that the bishops permission is always required. This permission, whether coming from the bishop or from the regular superior, should be in writing, according to the wording of the law; but an oral permission is sufficient to avoid the censure (St. Alph., "Theol. mor.", VII, 223). We may follow the opinion of St. Alphonsus (loc cit), who maintains that when one has an evident reason for entering within the cloister, he avoids both the censure and the sin, even though he have only an oral permission. It should be observed that girl-boarders are subject to this legislation. Hence the solemnly professed nuns who wish to occupy themselves with the education of the young must be provided with a pontifical indult.

However, cloistered nuns are not absolutely forbidden all intercourse with the outside world. They may of course receive letters; they may also receive visitors in the convent parlour, provided that they they remain behind the grating, or grille, erected there. For such visits a reasonable cause and a permission from the bishop is usally needed . The permission, however, is not required in case of those who, by virtue of their office, are obliged to have relations with a convent, viz. the ecclesiastical superior, the confessor (for spiritual affairs), the canonical visitor, etc. Except in Advent and Lent, relatives and children are permitted once a week. The conditions for a visit by a male religious are very severe; according to some authors he can only receive permission if he is a blood relation to the first or second degree, and then only four times a year. Further, although an irregular visit on the part of a lay person or secular priest does not constitute a grave a fault, any visit without leave is a mortal sin for the religious. Such is the severity of the prohibition contained in the decree of the Congregation of the Council, dated 7 June, 1669. However, the conditions commonly required for a mortal sin must be present. For that reason some eminent theologians do not think there is a mortal sin if the conversation does not last for a quarter of an hour (C. d'Annibale, Summula theol., III, n. 228). It should be noted, at the same time, that certain usages have mitigated the rigour of the laws here mentioned. In Spain, for instance, the permission of the diocesan authority is never asked for making such visits. And of course the law itself affects only convents where the inmates pronounce solemn vows.

(2) INSTITUTES WITH SIMPLE VOWS ONLY

Generally speaking, in a convent or monastery where there are no solemn vows there is no cloister protected by the excommunication of the "Apostolicae Sedis"; further, women cannot make solemn vows except in a convent which has the clausura. Sometimes, however, this papal clausura is granted to convents of women who make only simple vows. Except in this case the institutes of simple vows are not subject to the laws above-described. As a matter of fact, the only female convents in the United States with either solemn vows or the papal clausura are those of the Visitation Nuns at Georgetown, Mobile, St. Louis, and Baltimore. (See Bizzarri, "Collectanea: Causa Americana", lst. edit. X, page 778, and the decree, page 791.) The fifth convent mentioned in the decree, Kaskaskia, no longer exists. The same is true of Belgium and France, with the exception of the districts of Nice and Savoy. In these countries, therefore, the nuns forming part of the old religious orders have only the cloister imposed by their rules or by such vows as that of perpetual enclosure taken by the religious of St. Clare. It is worth noting that this vow, although it forbids the inmates to leave the cloister, does not forbid them to receive people from outside. They are not, then, acting contrary to their vow which they admit secular persons to the inside of their convents. But in countries where the absence of solemn vows exempts convents of women from the papal enclosure, the bishop, whom the Council of Trent (Sess. xxv, De Reg. et Mon., c.v.) constitutes the guardian of nuns cloister, can censure and punish with ecclesiastical penalties infractions of cloister, and can thus establish an episcopal clausura (cf. Reply, "In Parisiensi", 1 Aug. l839). In the institutes of simple vows, there is nearly always a partial cloister which reserves exclusively to the religious certain arts of their convents. This partial cloister in the nuns' convents has been committed to the special vigilance of the bishops by the Constitution, "Conditae", 8 December, 1900, second part, and, if we may judge by the present action of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the clausura in this form tends to become obligatory on all such Institutes. (See "Normae" of the Congreg. of Bishops and Regulars, 28 June, 1901.)

II. REASONS FOR THIS LEGISLATION

This legislation has for its principal object to safeguard the virtue of chastity. The religious consecrates his person to God, but he is not on that account impeccable in the matter of chastity; indeed, his very profession, if he does not live up to his ideal, exposes him to the danger of becoming a scandal and a source of the gravest harm to religion. To this principal reason inculcated in the Constitution "Periculoso" of Boniface VIII may be added others; for instance, the calm and recollection necessary for the religious life. The Church has therefore acted wisely in forestalling such dangers and protecting those who aim at leading a perfect life; and for this the external rigour is certainly not excessive. Moreover, this external rigour (as, e.g., the grille) varies much according to local needs and circumstances; and it seems that the recent institutes succeed admirably with their partial cloister, which is not protected by the severe penalties of the Church. The more perfect form, however, is undoubtedly better adapted to the mystic life.

III. SOURCES OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATION

(1) RELIGIOUS ORDERS

(a) Male

There is no pontifical constitution of universal application which prohibits the egress of the religious. The only written law that might be invoked is the decree of Clement VIII "Nullus Omnino", 25 June, 1599; and it would be difficult to prove that this Constitution is binding outside of Italy. Hence, this element of cloister results partly from usage, partly from special laws. A constitution of universal hearing was projected at the Vatican Council ("De Clausura", c. ii, "Collectio Lacensis", VII, 681). The interdict against the admission of women rests nowadays on the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Regularis Disciplinae", 3 Jan., 1742, and on that of Pius IX, "Apostolicae Sedis", see. 2, n. 7, 12 Oct., 1869, which renews the censures against offenders.

(b) Female

Here the Apostolical Constitutions abound. We cite some of the more recent which sanction at the same time the two elements of cloister "Salutare", 3 Jan., 1742, and "Per binas alias", 24 Jan. 1747, of Benedict XIV; add also, for the censures, the "Apostolicae Sedis", see. 2, n. 6, of Pius IX.

(2) INSTITUTES WITH SIMPLE VOWS ONLY

For these institutes there is no other law of universal application besides the constitution, "Conditae a Christo", which indeed rather supposes than imposes a certain clausura.

IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION

From the very first, the founders of monasteries and the masters of the spiritual life sought to guard against the dangers which commerce with the world and interaction with the other sex offered to those devoted to the life of perfection. So we find from the earliest times, both in the counsels and the rules of the initiators of the religious life, wise maxims of practical prudence. In the Synod of Alexandria (362) we find at the head of the minor ordinances a rule forbidding monks and religious celibates (continentes) to meet women, to speak to them, and, if it can be avoided, to see them, (Revillout, "Le Concile de Nicée", II, 475, 476). Still, cloister, as we understand it today, did not exist for the first Eastern monks. Their rules concerning monastic hospitality prove this; otherwise, how could St. Macrina have received the visits of which her brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, speaks ("Vita S. Macrinae", in P.G., XLVI, 975)? St. Basil's rules, in recommending discretion in the relations between monks and nuns, prove indirectly the non-existence of a cloister properly so called ("Regulae fusius tractatae, Q. and R., XXX, P.G., XXXI, 997; "Regulae brevius tractatae", 106-11, P.G. XXXI, 1155-58). What seems stranger still in our eyes, in the East there existed double monasteries where, in contiguous houses, if not actually under the same roof sometimes also pious men and women observed the same rule; sometimes also pious women (agapetai) shared their their homes with monks. As regards Africa, in St. Augustine's day the visits of clerics or of monks to the "virgins and widows" were made only with permission, and in the company of irreproachable Christians (Conc. Carth. III, can. xxv, Hardouin, I, 963). but the cloister proper was unknown, so much so that the nuns themselves used to go out, though always accompanied (Aug., Epist., ccxi, P.L., XXXIII, 963).

In Europe, St. Caesarius of Arles (536) forbade women to enter men's monasteries, and even prevented them from visiting the interior part of a nun's convent (Regula ad monachos, xi; Ad virgines, xxxiv, P.L., LXVII, 1100, 1114); so also St. Aurelius, who further forbade nuns to go out except with a companion (Regula ad monachos, xv; Ad virgines, XL P.L., LXVIII, 390, 401). The Rule of St. Benedict says nothing about the cloister, and even the Rule of St. Francis only forbids monks to enter convents of nuns. It is worth noting that other religious so far surpassed in severity the authorizations of current law as to place their churches under cloister (Carthusians; see "Guigonis Consuetudines", c. xxi, P.L., CLIII, 681, 682), or to prohibit the introduction of foods which the monks were forbidden to use (Camaldolese). St. Gregory (P.L., LXXVII, 717) in his letter (594) to the Abbot Valentine (letter xlii or xl, bk. IV) complained that the said abbot used to admit women into his monastery frequently, and used to allow his monks to act as godfathers at baptisms, thus associating with the women who acted as godmothers. This last permission appeared to him more reprehensible than the former. In the middle of the fifth century (450-56) an Irish council presided over by St. Patrick forbade (can. ix) the religious and consecrated virgins to lodge in the same inn, ride in the same carriage, or frequently meet together (Hard, I, 1791). About the same time, the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451) subjected to the bishop's jurisdiction the monks who lived outside their monastery. In 517 the Council of Epao (a locality which has not been identified hitherto. See Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte", II, 681; Loning, "Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts", I, 569, n. 2, identifies it with Albon, between Valence and Vienne; the "Mon. Germ. Hist.": Conc, I, l7, refer to Loning) prescribed measures (can. xxxviii) prohibiting any but women of known integrity or priests on duty from entering the monasteries of virgins (puellarum -- Hard., II, 1051). In the Constitution ("Novella") 133 of Justinian I, peri monachon 16 or 18 March, 539, we meet with a prescription which resembles much more closely our cloister. In the third chapter the emperor forbids women to enter men's monasteries even for a burial service, and vice versa. In the Council of Saragossa (69l) the Fathers assembled protested against the facility with which lay persons were admitted into monasteries (Hard., III,1780). Next come the Council of Freising (about 800), which forbids either laymen or clerics to enter nuns' convents (can. xxi in the collection reproduced in the "Mon. Germ. Hist: Capitularia Regum Francorum", I, 28), and the Council of Mainz (813), which forbids (can. xii) monks to go out without the abbot's leave, and which seems (can. xiii) to forbid absolutely all egress for nuns, even for the abbesses, except with the advice and permission of the bishop (Hard., IV, 1011, 1012). In the acts of the synods of 829 presented to Louis le Debonnaire, we find a measure to prevent monks from conversing with nuns without the bishop's permission ["Mon. Germ. Hist.: Capitularia", II, 42, n. 19 (53)]. The Second General Council of the Lateran (1139) forbade nuns to dwell in private houses (can. xxvi) and expressed the wish that they should not sing in the same choir with the canons or monks (Hard., VII, 1222). The Third Council of Lateran (1179) required a cause of clear necessity to justify clerics in visiting convents of nuns. We may add here the decree of Innocent III (1198) inserted in the Decretalia (I, 31, 7), which gives to the bishop the right to supplement the negligence of prelates who should not compel wandering monks to return to their convents.

Thus far we have surveyed the beginnings of the present legislation. In 1298 Boniface VIII promulgated his celebrated Constitution "Periculoso" (De Statu Regularium, in VI°, III, 16) in which he imposed the cloister on all nuns. According to this law all egress is forbidden to them; only persons of irreproachable life are admitted to see the sisters, and that only when there is a reasonable excuse previously approved of by the competent authorities. The bishops (in the convents which are subject to them, as well as in those which depend immediately on the Holy See) and the regular prelates (in other convents) are charged to watch over the execution of these dispositions. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, De Reg. et Mon., c.v.), confirming these measures, confided to the bishops all responsibility for the cloister of nuns; it further directed that no man might go out without a written permit from the bishop, and that outsiders, under pain of excommunication, might not enter without a written permit from the bishop or the regular superior, which permit might not be given except in case of necessity. St. Pius V, in his "Circa Pastoralis" (29 May, 1566), urged the execution of Boniface's law, and imposed the cloister even on the third orders. Shortly after, the same pontiff, in his "Decori" (1 February, 1570), defined the cases and the manner in which a professed nun might go outside of her cloister. In this connection may also be mentioned the "Ubi Gratiae" of Gregory XIII (13 June, 1575), explained by the Brief "Dubiis" (23 Dec., 1581). The decree of 11 May, 1669, and the declaration of 26 November 1679 of the congregation of the Council, forbid religious men to see nuns, even at the grating except within the limits referred to above.

This legislation is still further confirmed by the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, "Cum sacrarum", 1 June, 1741, "Salutare" of 3 Jan, 1742, concerning the entrance of outsiders; "Per binas alias", 24 Jan, I747, on the same subject; and the Letter "Gravissimo", 31 October, 1749, to the ordinaries of the pontifical territory on access of externs to the gripes, or gratings, through which they might communicate with cloistered religious; finally, by the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869, which passed sentence of excommunication on all offenders, and abrogated all usages contrary to the Constitution of Pius V on the egress of cloistered nuns (cf. reply of Holy Office 22 December, 1880).

The Apostolical constitutions about the cloister of regulars, and notably the exclusion of women, are all posterior to the Council of Trent. As regards the entrance of women, we have to quote: Regularium", 24 Oct. 1566, and "Decet", 16 July, 1570, both of St. Pius V; "Ubi Gratiae", 13 June, 1575, of Gregory XIII; "Nullus", section 18, of Clement VIII, 25 June 1599; "Regularis Disciplinae", 3 Jan., 1742, of Benedict XIV, lastly, the "Apostoliae Sedis" of Pius IX (1869), for the censures. Concerning the egress of religious, the reader may refer to the following constitutions: "Ad Romanum spectat", sections 20 and 21, 21 Oct., 1588, of Sixtus V; "Decretum illud", 10 March, 1601, of Clement VIII (on the question of journeys to Rome); also the decree "Nullus omnino", 25 June, 1599, of Clement VIII (for Italy).

V. LEGISLATION IN THIS EASTERN CHURCH

In our historical survey we have already cited the Greek sources of legislation prior to the seventh century. In 693 the Trullan Council, so called from the hall of the palace at Constantinople where it was held, is more precise than which preceded it. The forty-sixth canon (Hard., III, 1679) forbade monks and nuns to go out, except during the day, for a necessary cause, and with the previous authorization of their superior; the forty-seventh canon forbade men to sleep in a convent of women, and vice-versa. The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which Photius cites in his "Nomocanon" (P.G. CIV, 1091), in its eighteenth canon forbids women to dwell in men's monasteries (Hard., iv, 497, 498), and in the twentieth it condemns double monasteries, occupied by both monks and nuns (Hard., IV, 499, 500). Neither Balsamon nor Aristenes, in their commentaries on the canons of the councils (P.G., CXXXVII), nor Blastaris (1332), in his alphabetical list of the canons (P.G., CXLV, under the titles, "Hermits", "Nuns", col. 45-48, 49-50), nor the Maronite council of 1736, has any more recent general law to cite. This Maronite council cites two other Maronite synods of 1578 and 1596 (Coll. Lac., II. 36). In an article like the present it would be impossible to follow the evolution of the Eastern legislation and the Eastern usages in this matter, owing to the multitude of rites and of communities into which the Orientals tend to split up.

We may cite two Catholic Maronite synods of Mt. Lebanon, held in 1736 ancl 1818. The former of these (De monasteriis et monachis, IV, c.ii) recalls the old canons forbids double monasteries, imposes on the monks a cloister similar to that of the Western regulars, penalizing women offenders with sentence of excommunication, reserved to the patriarch. In the third chapter, devoted to sisterhoods, the Fathers recognize that the strict cloister is not of obligation in their church. They allow the nuns to go out for the needs of their convent, but they desire that the nuns shall never go out alone. The execution of these decrees was very slow, and met with much difficulty; and the synod of 1818 had to be convened in order to finally separate the convents of men from those of women.(cf. Coll. Lac., II, 365-368; 374, 382, 490, 491,496, 576.)

The provincial synod of the Ruthenians of the United Greek Rite (1720) introduced what is practically the Roman clausura the excommunication protecting their cloister is reserved to the pope {Coll. Lac. II, 55,58). In the patriarchical council of the Greek Melchite United Church (1812), we find nothing but a simple prohibition to the monks to go on journeys without written permission from their superior, and to pass the night outside of their monastery, except when assisting the dying (Coll. Lac. II, 586). In the Coptic Catholic and Syrian Catholic Churches there are at present no religious whatever. It may be affirmed, as a matter of fact, that the cloister is often relaxed among Eastern monks, especially the schismatics; the exclusion of women, however, is very rigorous in the twenty convents of Mt. Athos and among the Egyptian monks. There we find even more than the ancient rigour of the Studists for no female animal of any kind is allowed to exist on the promontory (see St. Theodore the studiste, "Epistula Nicolao discipulo, et testamentum" section 5, in P.G. XCIX, 941, 1820). The Basilian nuns of Russian Church also observe a strict cloister.

For CLOISTER in the architectural sense, see under ABBEY.

ARTHUR VERMEERSCH

School of Clonard

Clonard (Irish, Cluain Eraird, or Cluain Iraird, Erard's Meadow) was situated on the beautiful river Boyne, just beside the boundary line of the northern and southern halves of Ireland. The founder of this school, the most famous of the sixth century, was St. Finnian, an abbot and great wonder-worker. He was born at Myshall, County Carlow, about 470. At an early age he was placed under the care of St. Fortchern, by whose direction, it is said, he proceeded to Wales to perfect himself in holiness and sacred knowledge under the great saints of that country. After a long sojourn there, of thirty years according to the Salamanca MS., he returned to his native land and went about from place to place, preaching, teaching, and founding churches, till he was at last led by an angel to Cluain Eraird, which he was told would be the place of his resurrection. Here he built a little cell and a church of clay and wattle, which after some time gave way to a substantial stone structure, and entered on a life of study, mortification, and prayer. The fame of his learning and sanctity was soon noised abroad, and scholars of all ages flocked from every side to his monastic retreat -- young laymen and clerics, abbots and bishops even, and those illustrious saints who were afterwards known as the "Twelve Apostles of Erin". In the Office of St. Finnian it is stated that there were no fewer than 3000 pupils getting instruction at one time in the school in the green fields of Clonard under the broad canopy of heaven. The master excelled in exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, and to this fact must be mainly attributed the extraordinary popularity which his lectures enjoyed. The exact date of the saint's death is uncertain, but it was probably 552, and his burial-place is in his own church of Clonard. For centuries after his death the school continued to be renowned as a seat of Scriptural learning, but it suffered at the hands of the Danes, especially in the eleventh century, and two wretched Irishmen, O'Rorke of Breifney and Dermod McMurrough, helped to complete the unholy work which the Northmen had begun. With the transference by the Norman Bishop de Rochfort, in 1206, of the See of Meath from Clonard to Trim, the glory of the former place departed forever. Irish Life in Book of Lismore; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890).

JOHN HEALY

Clonfert

(Clonfertensis, in Irish Cluain-fearta Brenainn).

The Diocese of Clonfert, a suffragan see of the metropolitan province of Tuam, was founded in 557 by St. Brendan the Navigator, in a sheltered cluain or meadow near the Shannon shore, at the eastern extremity of the County Galway. The diocese was nearly coextensive with the tribe-land of the Hy Many or O'Kelly country. It still contains twenty-four parishes in the south-east of the County Galway, including one small parish east of the Shannon, which formed a part of the ancient Hy Many territory. The renown of Brendan as a saint and traveller by land and sea attracted from the very beginning many monks and students to his monastery of Clonfert, so that it became a very famous school of sanctity and learning, numbering at one time, it is said, no less than three thousand students. Brendan was not a bishop himself, but he had as coadjutor, his nephew, Moinenn, who, after his death, became an abbot-bishop and head of the monastic school. At a later period a still more celebrated man, Cummian Fada, or Cummian the Tall, presided over the school and Diocese of Clonfert. He took a leading part in the famous Paschal controversy and wrote a very learned work on the subject, known as his "Paschal Epistle", which fortunately still survives (P.L., LXXXVIII) and furnishes conclusive evidence of thevaried learning cultivated in the school of Clonfert.

Clonfert being on the highway of the Shannon suffered greatly from the ravages of the Danes, and also of some Irish chieftains who imitated their bad example; yet the school and monastery lived on through those stormy times, and we have a fuller list of bishops and abbots of Clonfert than we have of any other see, at least in the West of Ireland. It was richly endowed with large estates of fertile land, and hence we find that the Bishop of Clonfert, according to a scale fixed in 1392, paid to the papal treasury on his appointment three hundred florins in gold, the Archbishop of Tuam being taxed only at two hundred florins. At the general suppression of religious houses by Henry VIII, the Abbot O'Gormacan, with the help of Clanrickarde, contrived to hold the abbey lands of Clonfert until his death in spite of royal decrees. Roland de Burgo became bishop in 1534, and being an uncle of the Earl of Clanrickarde was able to keep his lands and his see for more than forty years under Henry, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. He was always a Catholic prelate, although it is probable that he took the Oath of Supremacy in order to get the temporalities from Henry VIII. Queen Elizabeth wrote to Sir H. Sydney suggesting the founding of a national university at Clonfert, on account of its central position on the highway of the lordly river, to be endowed with the abbey lands. But the project was never carried out.

The old cathedral of Clonfert still exists, and is one of the few ancient churches still used for religious worship, for it was seized by the Protestants in the reign of Elizabeth and has continued since in their hands. There is, however, practically no Protestant congregation. The church was small, being only fifty-four by twenty-seven feet in the clear, but its two characteristic features, the west doorway and the east windows, are very beautiful examples of the Irish Romanesque. Brash, and expert authority, has described the doorway with great minuteness, and declares that in point of design and execution it is not excelled by any similar work that he has seen in these islands. Of the east altar-window he says, "the design is exceedingly chaste and beautiful, the mouldings simple and effective, and the workmanship superior to any I have seen either of ancient or modern times." He attributes the building of this beautiful Romanesque church to Peter O'Mordha, a Cistercian monk, first Abbot of Boyle and afterwards Bishop of Clonfert. He belonged to a family of the highest artistic genius, to whom we also owe the noble arches of the old cathedral of Tuam, and the beautiful monastery of Cong.

In 1266, as we learn from the annals of Lough Ce', a certain John was sent over from Rome as Bishop-elect of the See of Clonfert. He must have received the sanction of the crown, and could not have been inducted to his see without the help of Walter de Burgo, Earl of Ulster. Hence we are told he was consecrated at the English town of Athenry as Bishop of Clonfert. This was on the Sunday before Christmas, 1266. He was also appointed papal nuncio, and we find (apud Theiner) a letter from Pope John XXI (1276) authorizing him to collect the crusaders' tax for the recovery of the Holy Land. This John, one of the few Italian prelates ever appointed to an Irish see, was a great benefactor to his cathedral church, and he is believed to have erected the statues and other carvings which decorate the western end of his cathedral. This can hardly be true, so far as the Romanesque doorway is concerned, for the Romanesque had then gone out for at least half a century as a feature in Irish architecture, and given place to the pointed style. It is said that he governed Clonfert for no less than 30 years, and was then transferred by the pope to the Archbishopric of Benvento in Italy, about 1296. It is doubtless true that John, with his artistic Italian tastes, finding in his diocese a cathedral of the best type of the Irish Romanesque, probably a hundred years old, did much to renovate and decorate with statuary the beautiful building. This no doubt would explain the ancient tradition that connects his name with the glories of the old cathedral. It is interesting to note in conclusion that Concors, an Abbot of Clonfert, was one of the three plenipotentaries who were sent by Roderick O'Connor, the last King of Ireland, to conclude the Treaty of Windsor, in the year 1175, by which Roderick renounced forever the sceptre and Kingdom of Ireland. The city of St. Brendan is now a vast solitude. The episcopal palace is falling into ruins; the beautiful church is there, but there is no resident clergyman, and only two houses -- that of the sexton and the police barrack.

O'DONOVAN, "Four Masters" (Dublin, 1856), passim; HEALY, "Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars" (Dublin, 1890); WARE-HARRIS, "Lives of the Bishops of Ireland (Dublin, 1739); ARCHDALL, "Monasticon Hibernicum", ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873).

JOHN HEALY

Abbey and School of Clonmacnoise

Situated on the Shannon, about half way between Athlone and Banagher, King's County, Ireland, and the most remarkable of the ancient schools of Erin. Its founder was St. Ciaran, surnamed Mac an Tsair, or "Son of the Carpenter", and thus distinguished from his namesake, the patron saint of Ossory. He chose this rather uninviting region because he thought it a more suitable dwelling-place for disciples of the Cross than the luxuriant plains not far away. Ciaran was born at Fuerty, County Roscommon, in 512, and in his early years was committed to the care of a deacon named Justus, who had baptized him, and from whose hands he passed to the school of St. Finnian at Clonard. Here he met all those saintly youths who with himself were afterwards known as the "Twelve Apostles of Erin", and he quickly won their esteem. When Finnian had to absent himself from the monastery, it was to the youthful Ciaran that he deputed his authority to teach and "give out the prayers", and when Ciaran announced his intended departure, Finnian would fain resign to him his cathair, or chair, and keep him in Clonard. But Ciaran felt himself unripe for such responsibility, and he knew, moreover, he had work to do elsewhere.

After leaving Clonard, Ciaran, like most of the contemporary Irish saints, went to Aran to commune with holy Enda. One night the two saints beheld the same vision, "of a great fruitful tree, beside a stream, in the middle of Ireland, and it protected the island of Ireland, and its fruit went forth over the sea that surrounded the island, and the birds of the world came to carry off somewhat of its fruit". And when Ciaran spoke of the vision to Enda, the latter said to him:

The great tree which thou beholdest is thou thyself, for thou art great in the eyes of God and men, and all Ireland will be full of thy honour. This island will be protected under the shadow of thy favour, and multitudes will be satisfied with the grace of thy fasting and prayer. Go then, with God's word, to a bank of a stream, and there found a church.

Ciaran obeyed. On reaching the mainland he first paid a visit to St. Senan of Scattery and then proceeded towards the "middle of Ireland", founding on his way two monasteries, in one of which, on Inis Ainghin, he spent over three years. Going farther south he came to a lonely waste by the Shannon, and seeking out a beautiful grassy ridge, called Ard Tiprait, or the "Height of the Spring," he said to his companions: "Here then we will stay, for many souls will go to heaven hence, and there will be a visit from God and from men forever on this place". Thus, on 23 January, 544, Ciaran laid the foundation of his monastic school of Clonmacnoise, and on 9 May following he witnessed its completion. Diarmait, son of Cerball, afterwards High King of Ireland, aided and encouraged the saint in every way, promising him large grants of land as an endowment. Ciaran's government of his monastery was of short duration; he was seized by a plague which had already decimated the saints of Ireland, and died 9 September, 544.

It is remarkable that a young saint dying before he was thirty-three, should have been the founder of a school whose fame was to endure for centuries. But Ciaran was a man of prayer and fasting and labour, trained in all the science and discipline of the saints, humble and full of faith, and so was a worthy instrument in the hands of Providence for the carrying out of a high design. St. Cummian of Clonfert calls him one of the Patres Priores of the Irish Church, and Alcuin, the most illustrious alumnus of Clonmacnoise, proclaims him the Gloria Gentis Scotorum. His festival is kept on 9 September, and his shrine is visited by many pilgrims.

Ciaran left but little mark upon the literary annals of the famous school he founded. But in the character which he gave it of a seminary for a whole nation, and not for a particular tribe or district, is to be found the secret of its success. The masters were chosen simply for their learning and zeal; the abbots were elected almost in rotation from the different provinces; and the pupils thronged thither from all parts of Ireland, as well as from the remote quarters of France and England. From the beginning it enjoyed the confidence of the Irish bishops and the favour of kings and princes who were happy to be buried in its shadow. In its sacred clay sleep Diarmait the High King, and his rival Guaire, King of Connaught; Turlough O'Conor, and his hapless son, Roderick, the last King of Ireland, and many other royal benefactors, who believed that the prayers of Ciaran would bring to heaven all those who were buried there.

But Clonmacnoise was not without its vicissitudes. Towards the close of the seventh century a plague carried off a large number of its students and professors; and in the eighth century the monastery was burned three times, probably by accident, for the buildings were mainly of wood. During the ninth and tenth centuries it was harassed not only by the Danes, but also, and perhaps mainly, by some of the Irish chieftains. One of these, Felim MacCriffon, sacked the monastery three times, on the last occasion slaughtering the monks, we are told, like sheep. Even the monks themselves were infected by the bellicose spirit of the times, which manifested itself not merely in defensive, but some- times even in offensive warfare. These were evil days for Clonmacnoise, but with the blessing of Ciaran, and under the "shadow of his favour", it rose superior to its trials, and all the while was the Alma Mater of saints and sages.

Under date 794, is recorded the death of Colgu the Wise, poet, theologian, and historian, who is said to have been the teacher of Alcuin at Clonmacnoise (see Coelchu). Another alumnus of vast erudition, whose gravestone may still be seen there, was Suibhne, son of Maclume, who died in 891. He is described as the "wisest and greatest Doctor of the Scots", and the annals of Ulster call him a "most excellent scribe". Tighernach, the most accurate and most ancient prose chronicler of the northern nations, belongs to Clonmacnoise, and probably also Dicuil (q.v), the world-famed geographer. In this school were composed the "Chronicon Scotorum", a valuable chronicle of Irish affairs from the earliest times to 1135, and the "Leabhar na h-Uidhre", which, excepting the "Book of Armagh", is the oldest Irish historical transcript now in existence. In the twelfth century Clonmacnoise was a great school of Celtic art, architecture, sculpture, and metal work. To this period and to this school we owe the stone crosses of Tuam and Cong, the processional cross of Cong, and perhaps the Tara Brooch and the Chalice of Ardagh. The ruined towers and crosses and temples are still to be seen; but there is no trace of the little church of Ciaran which was the nucleus of Clonmacnoise.

JOHN HEALY

St. Clotilda

(Fr. CLOTILDE; Ger. CHLOTHILDE).

Queen of the Franks, born probably at Lyons, c. 474; died at Tours, 3 June, 545. Her feast is celebrated 3 June. Clotilda was the wife of Clovis I, and the daughter of Chilperic, King of Burgundians of Lyons, and Caretena. After the death of King Gundovic (Gundioch), the Kingdom of Burgundy had been divided among his four sons, Chilperic reigning at Lyons, Gondebad at Vienne, and Godegisil at Geneva; Gondemar's capital is not mentioned. Chilperic and probably Godegisil were Catholics, while Gondebad professed Arianism. Clotilda was given a religious training by her mother caretena, who, according to Sidonius Apollinaris and Fortunatus of Poitiers, was a remarkable woman. After the death of Chilperic, Caretena seems to have made her home with Godegisil at Geneva, where her other daughter, Sedeleuba, or Chrona, founded the church of Saint-Victor, and took the religious habit. It was soon after the death of Chilperic that Clovis asked and obtained the hand of Clotilda.

From the sixth century on, the marriage of Clovic and Clotilda was made the theme of epic narratives, in which the original facts vere materially altered and the various versions found their way into the works of different Frankish chroniclers, e. g. Gregory of Tours, Fredegarius, and the "Liber Historiae". These narratives have the character common to all nuptial poems of the rude epic poetry found among many of the Germanic peoples. Here it will suffice to summarize the legends and add a brief statement of the historical facts. Further information will be found in special works on the subject. The popular poems substituted for King Godegisil, uncle and protector of Clotilda, his brother Gondebad, who was represented as the persecutor of the young princess. Gondebad is supposed to have slain Chilperic, thrown his wife into a well, with a stone tied around her neck, and exiled her two daughters. Clovis, on hearing of the beauty of Clotilda, sent his friend Aurelian, disguised as a beggar, to visit her secretly, and give her a gold ring from his master; he then asked Gondebad for the hand of the young princess. Gondebad, fearing the powerful King of the Franks, dared not refuse, and Clotilda accompanied Aurelian and his escort on their return journey. They hastened to reach Frankish territory, as Clotilda feared that Aredius, the faithful counsellor of Gondebad, on his return from Constantinople whither he had been sent on a mission, would influence his master to retract his promise. Her fears were justified. Shortly after the departure of the princess, Aredius returned and caused Gondebad to repent to the marriage. Troops were despatched to bring Clotilda back, but it was too late, as she was safe on Frankish soil. The details of this recital are purely legendary. It is historically established that Chilperic's death was lamented by Gondebad, and that Cartena lived until 506: she died "full of days", says her epitaph, having had the joy of seeing her children brought up in catholic religion. Aurelian and Aredius are historical personages, though little is known of them in the legend is highly improbable.

Clotilda, as wife of Clovis, soon acquired a great ascendancy over him, of which she availed herself to exhort him to embrace the Catholic Faith. For a long time her efforts were fruitless, though the king permitted the baptism of Ingomir, their first son. The child died in his infancy which seemed to give Clovis an argument against the God of Clotilda, but notwithstanding this, the young queen again obtained the consent of her husband to the baptism of their second son, Clodomir. Thus the future of Catholicism was already assured in the Frankish Kingdom. Clovis himself was soon afterwards converted under highly dramatic circumstances, and was baptized at Reims by St. Remigius, in 496 (see CLOVIS). Thus Clotildas accomplished the mission assigned her by Providence; she was made the instrument in the conversion of a great people, who were to be for centuries the leaders of Catholic civilization. Clotilda bore Clovis five children: four sons, Ingomir, who died in infancy, and Kings Clodomir, Childebert, and Clotaire, and one daughter, named Clotilda after her mother. Little more is known of Queen Clotilda during the lifetime of husband, but it may be conjectured that she interceded with him, at the time of his intervention in the quarrel between the Burgundian kings, to win him to the cause of Godegisil as against Gondebad. The moderation displayed by Clovis in this struggle, in which, though victor, he did not seek to turn the victory to his own advantage, as well as the alliance which he afterwards concluded with Gondebad, were doubtless due to the influence of Clotilda, who must have viewed the fratricidal struggle with horror.

Clovis died at Paris in 511, and Clotilda had him interred on what was then Mons Lucotetius, in the church of the Apostles (later Sainte-Geneviève), which they had built together to serve as a mausoleum, and which Clotilda was left to complete. The widowhood of this noble woman was saddened by cruel trials. Her son Clodomir, son-in-law of Gondebad, made war against his cousin Sigismund, who had succeeded Gondebad on the throne of Burgundy, captured him, and put him to death with his wife and children at Coulmiers, near Orléans. According to the popular epic of the Franks, he was incited to this war by Clotilda, who thought to avenge upon Sigismund the murder of her parents; but, as has already been seen Clotilda had nothing to avenge, and, on the contrary, it was probably she who arranged the alliance between Clovis and Gondebad. Here the legend is at variance with the truth, cruelly defaming the memory of Clotilda, who had the sorrow of seeing Clodomir perish in his unholy war on the Burgundians; he was vanquished and slain in the battle of Veseruntia (Vezeronce), in 524, by Godomar, brother of Sigismund. Clotilda took under her care his three sons of tender age, Theodoald, Gunther, and Clodoald. Childebert and Clotaire, however, who had divided between them the inheritance of their elder brother, did not wish the children to live, to whom later on they would have to render an account. By means of a ruse they withdrew the children from the watchful care of their mother and slew the two eldest, the third escaped and entered a cloister, to which he gave his name (Saint-Cloud, near Paris).

The grief of Clotilda was so great that Paris became insupportable to her, and she withdrew to Tours where close to the tomb of St. Martin, to whom she had great devotion, she spent the remainder of her life in prayer and good works. But there were trials still in store for her. Her daughter Clotilda, wife of Amalaric, the Visigothic king, being cruelly maltreated by her husband, appealed for help to her brother Childebert. He went to her rescue and defeated Amalaric in a battle, in which the latter was killed, Clotilda, however, died on the journey home, exhausted by the hardships she had endured. Finally, as though to crown the long martyrdom of Clotilda, her two sole surviving sons, Childebert and Clotaire, began to quarrel, and engaged in serious warfare. Clotaire, closely pursued by Childebert, who had been joined by Theodebert, son of Thierry I, took refuge in the forest of Brotonne, in Normandy, where he feared that he and his army would be exterminated by the superior forces of his adversaries. Then, says Gregory of Tours, Clotilda threw herself on her knees before the tomb of St. Martin, and besought him with tears during the whole night not to permit another fratricide to afflict the family of Clovis. Suddenly a frightful tempest arose and dispersed the two armies which were about to engage in a hand-to-hand struggle; thus, says the chronicler, did the saint answer the prayers of the afflicted mother. This was the last of Clotilda's trials. Rich in virtues and good works, after a widowhood of thirty-four years, during which she lived more as a religious than as a queen, she died and was buried in Paris, in the church of the Apostles, beside her husband and children.

The life of Saint Clotilda, the principal episodes of which, both legendary and historic, are found scattered throughout the chronicle of St. Gregory of Tours was written in the tenth century, by an anonymous author, who gathered his facts principally from this source. At an early period she was venerated by the Church as a saint, and while popular contemporary poetry disfigures her noble personality by making her a type of a savage fury, Clotilda has now entered into the possession of a pure and untarnished fame, which no legend will be able to obscure.

GODEFROID KURTH

Clouet

The family name of several generations of painters.

Jean (Jean the Younger)

Born at Tours, France, 1485; died, probably at Paris, between 1541 and 1545. He was the son and pupil of Jean the Elder, a Flemish painter who went to Paris from Brussels in 1460 and afterwards settled at Tours. Francis I made the son court painter at Paris, and, in 1518, a valet de chambre, a post of distinction. The court called him familiarly "Janet", a name which became generic, comprising his father, his son François, and their numerous imitators. Ronsard sang:

Peins moy, Janet, peins moy je t'en supplie.

His numerous portraits of royalty and nobility are all in the antique, or Gothic, style, like that of the Van Eycks. His outlines are sharp and precise, all the lines are clear, and he gives great attention to details. Clouet painted his sitter with fidelity and avoided theatrical (Italian) effects, hence the result is a portrait, simple, reticent, and naive. Much of his work was until recently attributed to Holbein. In 1524 he painted the celebrated portrait of Francis I in full armour on horseback, and in 1528 another, a life-size bust (now at Versailles), long ascribed to Mabuse. Some authorities claim that of his many pictures only one is authentic: the portrait of Francis I in the Louvre. Other notable works of Clouet's are "Eleanor of Spain" (wife of Francis I) in Hampton Court, and "Margaret of Valois" in Liverpool.

François, called François Janet and Maitre Jehannet

Born probably at Tours, between 1500 and 1520; died at Paris, between 1570 and 1580. He was the son and pupil of Jean the Younger and was naturalized in 1541. At the age of thirty-five he succeeded his father as court painter to Francis I, to whom he was also appointed a valet de chambre. François was also court painter to Charles IX, at the close of whose reign all traces of him disappear. Clouet's work in oil, while Flemish in its scrupulous attention to details, is, however, distinctively French, and he carried to its highest the fame of "the Janets". He was the last of the French primitifs. His pictures are painted solidly, in pale, delicate tones, and without chiaroscuro. Clouet's portraits are true, accurate, and devoid of sentimentality; they show forth the moral and intellectual qualities of each sitter; and they "have the charm of intime painting" (Blanc). Two portraits of great brilliancy and distinction are the "Francis II as a Child" (1547) now at Antwerp, and "Henry II" (1553) in the Louvre; but Berlin possesses what are, perhaps, his masterpieces: "Francis II" and the "Duc d'Anjou" (Henry III). Clouet's office required him to depict every great court function, and as late as 1709 such a group of pictures was in existence. He made many sketches in black and red chalk, showing perfect draughtsmanship and splendid modelling. Castle Howard contains eighty-eight such drawings, all in the manner of Holbein. Clouet also painted miniatures; that of greatest historical interest is "Mary Queen of Scots" (Windsor Castle), which has never been out of royal possession since catalogued, in the time of Charles, as "by Jennet a French limner". It is probably the only authentic picture of the unhappy Mary. Clouet's work was highly valued during his lifetime, and he was a power at the courts of Francis I, Henry II, Francis II, and Charles IX. The brilliant men and women about these monarchs felt that "the Janets" had elevated art and France. To-day their pictures are so highly prized that many forgeries are made of them. Besides those mentioned, other great canvases by François are "Elizabeth of Austria", "Charles IX", both in the Louvre, and four portraits in Stafford House (London). Collections of his drawings are in the Louvre, British Museum, and Albertina Museum (Vienna).

LEIGH HUNT

Councils of Clovesho

Clovesho, or Clofeshoch, is notable as the place at which were held several councils of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The locality itself has never been successfully identified. It is supposed to have been in Mercia, and probably near London (Bede, ed. Plummer, II, 214). Lingard, in his appendix to the "Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church", takes it to be Abingdon, and Kemble (Saxons in England, II, 191) to be Tewkesbury, and others have thought it might be Cliff-at-Hoo, in Kent, but Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, III, 121, n.) consider all these conjectures to be based upon unreliable evidence. Whatever uncertainty exists in determining the place which was known as Clovesho, there is no doubt as to the fact of the councils or to the authenticity of their Acts. When Archbishop Theodore held the Council of Hertford in 673, in which he declared to the assembled bishops that he had been "appointed by the Apostolic See to be Bishop of the Church of Canterbury", a canon was passed to the effect that in future yearly synods should be held every August "in the place which is called Clofeshoch". (Bede, H. E., IV, ch. v.) Notwithstanding this provision, ìt was not until seventy years later that the first Council of Clovesho of which we have an authentic record was assembled. It is true that in the Canterbury Cartulary there is a charter which says that the Privilege of King Wihtred to the churches was "confirmed and ratified in a synod held in the month of July in a place called Clovesho" in the year 716; but the authenticity of this document, though intrinsically probable, is held by Haddan and Stubbs to be dependent upon that of the Privilege of Wihtred. The councils of Clovesho of which we have authentic evidence are those of the years 742, 747, 794, 798, 803, 824, and 825.

• (1) The Council of Clovesho in 742 was presided Over by Ethelbald, King of Mercia, and Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to the record of its proceedings (given in Kemble's "Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici", 87), the council "diligently enquired into the needs of religion, the Creed as delivered by the ancient teaching of the Fathers, and carefully examined how things were ordered at the first beginning of the Church here in England, and where the honour of the monasteries according to the rules of justice was maintained". The privilege of King Wihtred assuring the liberty of the Church was solemnly confirmed. Beyond this, no mention is made of particular provisions.

• (2) The Second Council of Clovesho, in 747, was one of the most important in the history of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Its acts were happily copied by Spelman (Councils, I, 240) from an ancient Cottonian Manuscript now lost. They are printed in Wilkins, I, 94; in Mansi, XII, 395; and in Haddan and Stubbs, III, 360. They state that the council was composed of "bishops and dignitaries of less degree from the various provinces of Britain", and that it was presided over by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to the Manuscript preserved by William of Malmesbury, "King Ethelbald and his princes and chiefs were present". It was thus substantially representative of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The Acts relate that "first of all, the Metropolitan, as president, brought forth in their midst two letters of the Apostolic Lord, Pope Zachary, venerated throughout the whole world, and with great care these were plainly read, and also openly translated into our own language, according as he himself by his Apostolic authority had commanded". The papal letters are described as containing a fervent admonition to amendment of life, addressed to the English people of every rank and condition, and requiring that those who contemned these warnings and remained obstinate in their malice should be punished by sentence of excommunication. The council then drew up thirty-one canons dealing mostly with matters of ecclesiastical discipline and liturgy.

  The thirteenth and fifteenth canons are noteworthy as showing the close union of the Anglo-Saxon Church with the Holy See. The thirteenth canon is: "That all the most sacred Festivals of Our Lord made Man, in all things pertaining to the same, viz.: in the Office of Baptism, the celebration of Masses, in the method of chanting, shall be celebrated in one and the same way, namely, according to the sample which we have received in writing from the Roman Church. And also, throughout the course of the whole year, the festivals of the Saints are to be kept on one and the same day, with their proper psalmody and chant, according to the Martyrology of the same Roman Church." The fifteenth canon adds that in the seven hours of the daily and nightly Office the clergy "must not dare to sing or read anything not sanctioned by the general use, but only that which comes down by authority of Holy Scripture, and which the usage of the Roman Church allows". The sixteenth canon in like manner requires that the litanies and rogations are to be observed by the clergy and people with great reverence "according to the rite of the Roman Church". The feasts of St. Gregory and of St. Augustine, "who was sent to the English people by our said Pope and father St. Gregory", were to be solemnly celebrated. The clergy and monks were to live so as to be always prepared to receive worthily the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord, and the laity were to be exhorted to the practice of frequent Communion (Canons xxii, xxiii). Persons who did not know Latin were to join in the psalmody by intention, and were to be taught to say, in the Saxon tongue, prayers for the living or for the repose of the souls of the dead (Can. xxvii). Neither clergy nor monks were in future to be allowed to live in the houses of the people (Can. xxix), nor were they to adopt or imitate the dress which is worn by the laity (Can. xxviii).

• (3) The record of the Council of Clovesho in 794 consists merely in a charter by which Offa, King of Mercia, made a grant of land for pious purposes. The charter states that it has been drawn up "in the general synodal Council in the most celebrated place called Clofeshoas". At or about the time when the papal legates presided at the Council of Chelsea in 787, Offa had obtained from Pope Adrian I that Lichfield should be created an archbishopric and that the Mercian sees should be subjected to its jurisdiction and withdrawn from that of Canterbury. Consequently at this Council of Clovesho in 794, Higbert of Lichfield, to whom the pope had sent the pall, signs as an archbishop.
• (4) A council was held at Clovesho in 798 by Archbishop Ethelheard with Kenulph, King of Mercia, at which the bishops and abbots and chief men of the province were present. Its proceedings are related in a document by Archbishop Ethelheard (Lambeth Manuscript 1212, p. 312; Haddan and Stubbs, III, 512). He states that his first care was to examine diligently "in what way the Catholic Faith was held and how the Christian religion was practised amongst them". To this inquiry, "they all replied with one voice: 'Be it known to your Paternity, that even as it was formerly delivered to us by the Holy Roman and Apostolic See, by the mission of the most Blessed Pope Gregory, so do we believe, and what we believe, we in all sincerity do our best to put into practice.'" The rest of the time of the council was devoted to questions of church property, and an agreement of exchange of certain lands between the archbishop and the Abbess Cynedritha.
• (5) The Council of Clovesho in 803 is one of the most remarkable of the series, as its Acts contain the declaration of the restitution of the Mercian sees to the province of Canterbury by the authority of Pope Leo III. In 798 King Kenulph of Mercia addressed to the pope a long letter, written as he says "with great affection and humility", representing the disadvantages of the new archbishopric which had been erected at Lichfield some sixteen years previously by Pope Adrian, at the prayer of King Offa. King Kenulph in this letter (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 521) submits the whole case to the pope, asking his blessing and saying: "I love you as one who is my father, and I embrace you with the whole strength of my obedience", and promising to abide in all things by his decision. "I judge it fitting to bend humbly the ear of our obedience to your holy commands, and to fulfil with all our strength whatever may seem to your Holiness that we ought to do." Ethelheard, Archbishop of Canterbury, went himself to Rome, and pleaded for the restitution of the sees. In 802 Pope Leo III granted the petition of the king and the archbishop, and issued to the latter a Bull in which by the authority of Blessed Peter he restored to him the full jurisdiction enjoyed by his predecessors. The pope communicated this judgment in a letter to King Kenulph (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 538). This decision was duly proclaimed in the Council of Clovesho held in the following year. Archbishop Ethelheard declared to the synod that "by the co-operation of God and of the Apostolic Lord, the Pope Leo", he and his fellow-bishops unanimously ratified the rights of the See of Canterbury, and that an archbishopric should never more be founded at Lichfield, and that the grant of the pallium made by Pope Adrian, should, "with the consent and permission of the Apostolic Lord Pope Adrian, be considered as null, having been obtained surreptitiously and by evil suggestion". Higbert, the Archbishop of Lichfield, submitted to the papal judgment, and retired into a monastery, and the Mercian sees returned to the jurisdiction of Canterbury.
• (6-7) In 824 and again in 825 synods were held at Clovesho, "Beornwulf, King of Mercia, presiding and the Venerable Archbishop Wulfred ruling and controlling the Synod", according to the record of the first, and "Wulfred the Archbishop presiding, and also Beornwulf, King of Mercia", according to the second. The first assembly was occupied in deciding a suit concerning an inheritance, and the second in terminating a dispute between the archbishop and the Abbess Cwenthrytha (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 593, 596).

It is evident from the records that the councils held at Clovesho and those generally of the Anglo-Saxon period were mixed assemblies at which not only the bishops and abbots, but the kings of Mercia and the chief men of the kingdom were present. They had thus the character not only of a church synod but of the Witenagemot or assembly fairly representative of the Church and realm. The affairs of the Church were decided by the bishops presided over by the archbishop, while the king, presiding over his chiefs, gave to their decisions the co-operation and acceptance of the State. Both parties signed the decrees, but there is no evidence of any ingerence of the lay power in the spiritual legislation or judgments of the Church. While it must be remembered that at this period the country was not yet united into one kingdom, the councils of Clovesho, as far as we may judge from their signatures, represented the primatial See of Canterbury and the whole English Church south of the Humber.

KEMBLE, Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici (London, 1839-48); THORPE ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London, 1861); BEDE, Historia Eccl. Gentis Anglorum, ed. PLUMMER (Oxford, 1896); WILKINS, Concilia Magnœ Britanniœ (London, 1737); HADDAN AND STUBBS, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents (Oxford, 1869-78); SPELMAN, Concilia, decreta, etc., in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici (London, 1639-64).

J. MOYES.

Giorgio Clovio

(Also known as Giulio Clovio)

A famous Italian miniaturist, called by Vasari "the unique" and "little Michelangelo", b. at Grizani, on the coast of Croatia, in 1498; d. at Rome, 1578. His family appear to have come from Macedonia, and his original name was perhaps Glovic. Coming to Italy at the age of eighteen, he soon won renown, and became a protégé of Cardinal Grimani, for whom he engraved medals and seals. One of his first pictures was a Madonna after an engraving by Albert Durer. In 1524 Clovio was at Buda, at the court of King Louis II, for whom he painted the "Judgment of Paris" and "Lucretia". In 1526 he returned to Rome, and a year later, falling into the hands of the Constable Bourbon's banditti, he made a vow to enter religion if he could escape from them. He accordingly took orders at Mantua, and illustrated several manuscripts for his convent, adopting in religion the name Giulio, perhaps in memory of Giulio Romano, who had been one of his early advisers. Thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Grimani, he was soon released from his vows, and spent several years in the service of this prelate, for whom he executed some of his most beautiful works — a Latin missal, 1537 (in Lord Hertford's collection), and a Petrarch (in the Trivulzio Library at Milan). He was at Venice in 1538, but in 1540 was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul III. Cosimo II then lured him to Tuscany, and princes disputed over his achievements. Philip II ordered from Clovio a life of his father, Charles V, in twelve scenes, and John III or Portugal paid him 2000 ducats for a psalter, but a prayer book which he made for Cardinal Farnese, and which Vasari calls a "divine work", was considered Clovio's masterpiece. The binding was made after a design by Cellini. Clovio died in Rome at the age of eighty; his tomb is to be seen in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, and his works are preserved in all the libraries of Europe, especially that of the Vatican.

This famous artist, although one of the most highly esteemed in his own line, was nevertheless among those who helped to injure it. By introducing into it the ideas and monumental style of the Renaissance and replacing rich costumes, delicate arabesques, and gothic foliage by the nude, by antique ornaments, trophies, medallions, festoons, etc., Clovio contributed largely to the decadence of the charming art of miniature-painting, and his example of extreme elaboration was imitated throughout Europe at a time when printing had not yet supplanted manuscripts for editions de luxe. However sumptuous his work, it lacked the quality which distinguished that done by the French illuminators at an earlier period for Charles V and the Duc de Berry.

LOUIS GILLET.

Clovis

(CHLODWIG, or CHLODOWECH)

Son of Childeric, King of the Salic Franks; born in the year 466; died at Paris, 27 November, 511. He succeeded his father as the King of the Franks of Tournai in 481. His kingdom was probably one of the States that sprang from the division of Clodion's monarchy like those of Cambrai, Tongres and Cologne. Although a Pagan, Childeric had kept up friendly relations with the bishops of Gaul, and when Clovis ascended the throne he received a most cordial letter of congratulation from St. Remigius, Archbishop of Reims. The young king early began his course of conquest by attacking Syagrius, son of Aegidius, the Roman Count. Having established himself at Soissons, he acquired sovereign authority over so great a part of Northern Gaul as to be known to his contemporaries as the King of Soissons. Syagrius, being defeated, fled for protection to Alaric II, King of the Visigoths, but the latter, alarmed by a summons from Clovis, delivered Syagrius to his conqueror, who had him decapitated in 486. Clovis then remained master of the dominions of Syagrius and took up his residence at Soissons. It would seem as if the episode of the celebrated vase of Soissons were an incident of the campaign against Syagrius, and it proves that, although a pagan, Clovis continued his father's policy by remaining on amicable terms with Gaulish episcopate. The vase, taken by the Frankish soldiers while plundering a church, formed part of the booty that was to be divided among the army. It was claimed by the bishop (St. Remigius?), and the king sought to have it awarded to himself in order to return it intact to the bishop, but a dissatisfied soldier split the vase with his battle-axe, saying to this king: "You will get only the share allotted you by fate". Clovis did not openly resent the insult, but the following year, when reviewing his army he came upon this same soldier and, reproving him for the the defective condition of his arms, he split his skull with an axe, saying: "It was thus that you treated the Soissons vase." This incident has often been cited to show that although in time of war a king has unlimited authority over his army, after the war his power is restricted and that in the division of booty the rights of the soldiers must be respected.

After the defeat of Syagrius, Clovis extended his dominion as far as the Loire. It was owing to the assistance given him by the Gaulish episcopate that he gained possession of the country. The bishops, it is quite certain mapped out the regime that afterwards prevailed. Unlike that adopted in other barbarian kingdoms founded upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, this regime established absolute equality between the Gallo-Roman natives and their Germanic conquerors all sharing the same privileges. Procopius, a Byzantine writer has given us an idea of this agreement, but we know it best by its results. There was no distribution of Gaulish territory by the victors; established in the Belgian provinces, they had lands there to which they returned after each campaign. All the free men in the kingdom of Clovis, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin, called themselves Franks, and we must guard against the old mistake of looking upon the Franks after Clovis as no more than Germanic barbarians.

Master of half of Gaul, Clovis returned to Belgium and conquered the two Salic kingdoms of Cambrai and Tongres (?), where his cousins Ragnacaire and Chararic reigned. These events have been made known to us only through the poetic tradition of the Franks which has singularly distorted them. According to this tradition Clovis called upon Chararic to assist him its his war against Syagrius, but Chararic's attitude throughout the battle was most suspicious, as he refrained from taking sides until he saw which of the rivals was to be victorious. Clovis longed to have revenge. Through a ruse he obtained possession of Chararic and his son and threw them into prison; he then had their heads shaved, and both were ordained, the father to the priesthood and the son to the diaconate. When Chararic bemoaned and wept over this humiliation his son exclaimed: "The leaves of a green tree have been cut but they will quickly bud forth again; may he who has done this perish as quickly!" This remark was reported to Clovis, and he had both father and son beheaded.

Tradition goes on to say that Ragnacaire King of Cambrai, was a man of such loose morals he hardly respected his own kindred, and Farron, his favourite, was equally licentious. So great was the king's infatuation for this man that, if given a present, he would accept it for himself and his Farron. This filled his subjects with indignation and Clovis, to win them over to his side before taking the field, distributed among them money, bracelets, and baldries, all in gilded copper in fraudulent imitation of genuine gold. On different occasions Ragnacaire sent out spies to ascertain the strength of Clovis's army, and upon returning they said: "It is a great reinforcement for you and your Farron." Meanwhile Clovis advanced and the battle began. Being defeated, Ragnacaire sought refuge in flight, but was overtaken; made prisoner, and brought to Clovis, his hands bound behind him. "Why", said his conqueror have you permitted our blood to be humiliated by allowing yourself to be put in chains? It were better that you should die." And, so saying, Clovis dealt him his death-blow. Then, turning to Richaire, Ragnacaire's brother, who had been taken prisoner with the king, he said: "Had you but helped your brother, they would not have bound him", and he slew Richaire also. After these deaths the traitors discovered that they had been given counterfeit gold and complained of it to Clovis, but he only laughed at them. Rignomir, one of Ragnacaire's brothers, was put to death at Le Mans by order of Clovis, who took possession of the kingdom and the treasure of his victims.

Such is the legend of Clovis; it abounds in all kinds of improbabilities, which cannot be considered as true history. The only facts that can be accepted are that Clovis made war upon Kings Ragnacaire and Chararic, put them to death and seized their territories. Moreover, the author of this article is of opinion that these events occurred shortly after the conquest of the territory of Syagrius, and not after the war against the Visigoths, as has been maintained by Gregory of Tours, whose only authority is an oral tradition, and whose chronology in this matter is decidedly misleading. Besides Gregory of Tours has not given us the name of Chararic's kingdom; it was long believed to have been established at Therouanne but it is more probable that Tongres was its capital city, since it was here that the Franks settled on gaining a foothold in Belgium.

In 492 or 493 Clovis, who was master of Gaul from the Loire to the frontiers of the Rhenish Kingdom of Cologne, married Clotilda, the niece of Gondebad, King of the Burgundians. The popular epic of the Franks has transformed the story of this marriage into a veritable nuptial poem the analysis of which will be found in the article on Clotilda. Clotilda, who was a Catholic, and very pious, won the consent of Clovis to the baptism of their son, and then urged that he himself embrace the Catholic Faith. He deliberated for a long time. Finally, during a battle against the Alemanni--which without apparent reason has been called the battle of Tolbiac (Zulpich)--seeing his troops on the point of yielding, he invoked the aid of Clotilda's God, promised to become a Christian if only victory should be granted him. He conquered and, true to his word was baptized at Reims by St. Remigius, bishop of that city, his sister Albofledis and three thousand of his warriors at the same time embracing Christianity. Gregory of Tours, in his ecclesiastical history of the Franks has described this event, which took place amid great pomp at Christmas, 496. "Bow thy head, O Sicambrian", said St. Remigius to the royal convert "Adore what thou hast burned and burn what thou hast adored." According to a ninth-century legend found in the life of St. Remigius, written by the celebrated Hinemar himself Archbishop of Reims, the chrism for the baptismal ceremony was missing and was brought from heaven in a vase (ampulla) borne by a dove. This is what is known as the Sainte Ampoule of Reims, preserved in the treasury of the cathedral of that city and used for the coronation of the kings of France from Philip Augustus down to Charles X.

The conversion of Clovis to the religion of the majority of his subjects soon brought about the union of the Gallo-Romans with their barbarian conquerors. While in all the other Germanic kingdoms founded on the ruins of the Roman Empire the difference of religion between the Catholic natives and Arian conquerers was a very active cause of destruction, in the Frankish kingdom, on the contrary, the fundamental identity of religious beliefs and equality of political rights made national and patriotic sentiments universal and produced the most perfect harmony between the two races. The Frankish Kingdom was thenceforth the representative and defender of Catholic interests throughout the West, while to his conversion Clovis owed an exceptionally brilliant position. Those historians who do not understand the problems of religious psychology have concluded that Clovis embraced Christianity solely from political motives, but nothing is more erroneous. On the contrary, everything goes to prove that his conversion was sincere, and the opposite cannot be maintained without refusing credence to the most trustworthy evidence.

In the year 500 Clovis was called upon to mediate in a quarrel between his wife's two uncles, Kings Gondebad of Vienne and Godegisil of Geneva. He took sides with the latter, whom he helped to defeat Gondebad at Dijon, and then, deeming it prudent to interfere no further in this fratricidal struggle, he returned home, leaving Godegisil an auxiliary corps of five thousand Franks. After Clovis's departure Gondebad reconquered Vienne, his capital in which Godegisil had established himself. This reconquest was effected by a stratagem seconded by treachery, and Godegisil himself perished on the same occasion. The popular poetry of the Franks has singularly misrepresented this intervention of Clovis, pretending that, at the instigation of his wife Clotilda, he sought to avenge her grievances against her uncle Gondebad (see CLOTILDA) and that the latter king, besieged in Avignon by Clovis, got rid of his opponent through the agency of Aredius, a faithful follower. But in these poems there are so many fictions as to render the history in them indistinguishable.

An expedition, otherwise important and profitable was undertaken by Clovis in the year 506 against Alaric II, King of the Visigoths of Aquitaine. He was awaited as their deliverer by the Catholics of that kingdom, who were being cruelly persecuted by Arian fanatics, and was encouraged in his enterprise by the Emperor Anastasius, who wished to crush this ally of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths. Despite the diplomatic efforts made by the latter to prevent the war, Clovis crossed the Loire and proceeded to Vouille, near Poitiers, where he defeated and slew Alaric, whose demoralized troops fled in disorder. The Franks took possession of the Visigoth Kingdom as far as the Pyrenees and the Rhone, but the part situated on the left bank of this river was stoutly defended by the armies of Theodoric, and thus the Franks were prevented from seizing Arles and Provence. Notwithstanding this last failure, Clovis, by his conquest of Aquitaine, added to the Frankish crown the fairest of its jewels. So greatly did the Emperor Anastasius rejoice over the success attained by Clovis that, to testify his satisfaction, he sent the Frankish conqueror the insignia of the consular dignity, an honour always highly appreciated by the barbarians.

The annexation of the Rhenish Kingdom of Cologne crowned the acquisition of Gaul by Clovis. But the history of this conquest, also, has been disfigured by a legend that Clovis instigated Chloderic, son of Sigebert of Cologne, to assassinate his father, then, after the perpetration of this foul deed, caused Chloderic himself to be assassinated, and finally offered himself to the Rhenish Franks as king, protesting his innocence of the crimes that had been committed. The only historical element in this old story, preserved by Gregory of Tours, is that the two kings of Cologne met with violent deaths, and that that Clovis, their relative, succeeded them partly by right of birth, partly by popular choice. The criminal means by which he is said to have reached this throne are pure creation of the barbarian imagination.

Master now of a vast kingdom, Clovis displayed the same talent in governing that he had displayed in conquering it. From Paris, which he had finally made his capital, he administered the various provinces through the agency of counts (comites) established in each city and selected by him from the aristocracy of both races, conformably to the principle of absolute equality between Romans and barbarians, a principle which dominated his entire policy. He caused the Salic Law (Lex Salica) to be reduced to written form, revised end adapted to the new social conditions under which his fellow barbaricans were subsequently to live. Acknowledging the Church as the foremost civilizing force, he protected it in every way possible, especially by providing for it the National Council of Orleans (511), at which the bishops of Gaul settled many questions pertaining to the relations between Church and state. Hagiographic legends attribute to Clovis the founding of a great many churches and monasteries throughout France, and although the accuracy of this claim cannot be positively established, it is nevertheless certain that the influence of the council in this matter must have been considerable. However, history has preserved the memory of foundation which was undoubtedly due to Clovis: the church of the Apostles, later of Sainte-Geneviève, on what was then Mons Lucotetius, to the south of Paris. The king destined it as a mausoleum for himself and his queen Clotilda, and before it was completed his mortal remains were there interred. Clovis died at the age of forty-five. His sarcophagus remained in the crypt of Sainte-Geneviève until the time of the French Revolution, when it was broken open by the revolutionists, and his ashes scattered to the winds, the sanctuary of the beautiful church being destroyed.

The history of this monarch has been so hopelessly distorted by popular poetry and so grossly disfigured by the vagaries of the barbarian imagination as make the portrayal of his character wellneigh impossible. However, from authentic accounts of him it may be concluded that his private life was not without virtues. As a statesman he succeeded in accomplishing what neither the genius of Theodoric the Great nor that of any contemporary barbarian king could achieve: upon the ruins of the Roman Empire he built up a powerful system, the influence of which dominated European civilization during many centuries, and from which sprang France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland, without taking into account that northern Spain and northern Italy were also, for a time, under the civilizing regime of the Frankish Empire.

Clovis left four sons. Theodoric, the eldest, was the issue of union prior to that contracted with Clotilda, who was, however, the mother of the three others, Clodomir, Childebert, and Clotaire. They divided their father's kingdom among themselves, following the barbarian principle that sought promotion of personal rather than national interests, and looked upon royalty as the personal prerogative of the sons of kings. After the death of Clovis his daughter Clotilda, named after her mother, married Amalric, king of the Visigoths. She died young, being cruelly abused by this Arian prince, who seemed eager to wreak vengeance on the daughter of Clovis for the tragic death of Alaric II.

ARNDT (ed.), GREGORY OF TOURS, Historia ecclesiastica Francorum in Mon. Germ. Hist:. Script. RR. Merovingicarum; JUNGHANS, Die Gesdichte der frankischen Konige Childerich und Chlodovich (Gottingen, 1857), tr. by MONOD as Histore critique de rois Childeric et Clovis (Paris, 1879); RAJNA, Le origini dell' epopea francese (Florence, 1884); KURTH, Histoire poetique des Merovingiens (Paris 1893): IDEM, Clovis (Tours, 1896, and Paris, 1901).

GODEFROID KURTH

Diocese of Cloyne

(Gaelic Cluain-uania, Cave-meadow. Latin Clonensis or Cloynensis.)

Comprises the northern half of County Cork. It has 140 priests, 47 parishes, 16 convents, 8 Bothers' schools, 235 primary schools, and, for higher education, St. Colman's College and Loreto Convent (Fermoy), besides high schools at Queenstown [Cobh] and elsewhere. St. Colman's Cathedral, Queenstown, begun in 1869 under Bishop Keane, continued under Bishop McCarthy, in 1908 near completion, is one of the most beautiful of modern Gothic cathedrals. The medieval diocesan cathedral, used by Protestants since the sixteenth century, still stands at Cloyne. St. Colman MacLenin (560-601), diverted from his profession of poet-historian by Sts. Ita and Brendan, became (560) first Bishop of Cloyne, where he got a royal grant of land. Some religious poems, notably a metrical life of St. Senan, are attributed to him.

Fergal, Abbot-Bishop of Cloyne, was massacred in 888 by the Danes. There are seven recorded devastations of Cloyne from 822 to 1137. The ecclesiastical records were destroyed, so that few prelates' names before 1137 are known; we have nearly all of them since that year. In 1152 (Synod of Kells) Cloyne was made one of Cashel's twelve suffragan sees. From 1265 to 1429 the bishops of Cloyne were mostly Englishmen. Effingham (1284-1320) probably built Cloyne cathedral. Swafham (1363-1376), who wrote "Contra Wicklevistas" and "Conciones", commenced the "Rotulus Pipæ Clonensis", the rent-roll of the see. Robbery of church property by nobles impoverished the Sees of Cloyne and Cork, which were united in 1429, by papal authority, under Bishop Purcell. Blessed Thaddeus MacCarthy was bishop from 1490 to 1492. The last Catholic bishop who enjoyed the temporalities was Benet (1523-1536). Tirry, appointed in 1536 by Henry VIII, and Tirry's successor, Skiddy, are ignored in the Consistorial Acts. Macnamara succeeded Benet; O'Heyne succeeded in 1540; Landes in 1568; Tanner in 1574; MacCreaghe in 1580; Tirry in 1622; Barry in 1647; Creagh in 1676; Sleyne in 1693; MacCarthy in 1712; MacCarthy (Thaddeus) in 1727. The bishops of penal times were ruthlessly persecuted, and some suffered cruel imprisonment or died in exile. John O'Brien, author of an Irish dictionary, poems, and tracts, was Bishop of Cloyne and Ross (1748-1769). He died in exile in Lyons. His successors were Matthew MacKenna, appointed in 1769; William Coppinger in 1791; Michael Collins in 1830; Bartholomew Crotty in 1833; David Walsh in 1847. Since the separation of Ross (1849) the bishops of Cloyne have been: Timothy Murphy, appointed in 1849; William Keane, 1857; John MacCarthy, 1874; Robert Browne, 1894.

Over a century ago, when persecution relaxed somewhat, the diocese, despoiled of all its ancient churches, schools, and religious houses, had to be fully equipped anew. About 100 plain churches were erected between 1800 and 1850. Recently a fourth of these have been replaced, especially in towns, and the new structures are admirably designed and finished. Between 1800 and 1907, notwithstanding great difficulties and loss by emigration, besides 103 parish churches, all the existing schools, colleges, religious and charitable institutions were built, and all are now doing useful and excellent work.

BRADY, Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (Dublin, 1864); BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland and Ireland (Rome, 1876); CAULFIELD, ed., Rotulus Pipæ Clonensis (Cork, 1869); ARCHDALL (ed. MORAN), Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1907).

JOHN O'RIORDAN

Congregation of Cluny

(CLUNI, CLUGNI, or CLUGNY)

The earliest reform, which became practically a distinct order, within the Benedictine family. It originated at Cluny, a town in Saone-et-Loire, fifteen miles north-west of Macon, where in 910 William the Pious, Duke of Aquitaine, founded an abbey and endowed it with his entire domain. Over it he placed St. Berno, then Abbot of Gigny, under whose guidance a somewhat new and stricter form of Benedictine life was inaugurated. The reforms introduced at Cluny were in some measure traceable to the influence of St. Benedict of Aniane, who had put forward his new ideas at the first great meeting of the abbots of the order held at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) in 817, and their development at Cluny resulted in many departures from precedent, chief among which was a highly centralized form of government entirely foreign to Benedictine tradition. The reform quickly spread beyond the limits of the Abbey of Cluny, partly by the founding of new houses and partly by the incorporation of those already existing, and as all these remained dependent upon the mother-house, the Congregation of Cluny came into being almost automatically. Under St. Berno's successors it attained a very widespread influence, and by the twelfth century Cluny was at the head of an order consisting of some 314 monasteries. These were spread over France, Italy, the Empire, Lorraine, England, Scotland, and Poland. According to the "Bibliotheca Cluniacensis" (Paris, 1614) 825 houses owed allegiance to the Abbot of Cluny in the fifteenth century. Some writers have given the number as 2000, but there is little doubt that this is an exaggeration. It may perhaps include all those many other monasteries which, though no joining the congregation, adopted either wholly or in part the Cluny constitutions, such as Fleury, Hirschau, Farfa, and many others that were subject to their influence.

During the first 250 years of its existence Cluny was governed by a series of remarkable abbots, men who have left their mark upon the history of Western Europe and who were prominently concerned with all the great political questions of their day. Among these were Sts. Odo, Mayeul, Odilo, and Hugh, and Peter the Venerable. Under the last named, the ninth abbot, who ruled from 1122 to 1156, Cluny reached the zenith of its influence and prosperity, at which time it was second only to Rome as the chief centre of the Christian world. It became a home of learning and a training school for popes, four of whom, Gregory VII (Hildebrand), Urban II, Paschal II, and Urban V, were called from its cloisters to rule the Universal Church. In England the Cluniac houses numbered thirty-five at the time of the dissolution. There were three in Scotland. The earliest foundation was that of the priory of St. Pancras at Lewes (1077), the prior of which usually held the position of vicar-general of the Abbot of Cluny for England and Scotland. Other important English houses were at Castleacre, Montacute, Northampton, and Bermondsey.

After the twelfth century the power of Cluny declined somewhat, and in the sixteenth century it suffered much through the civil and religious wars of France and their consequences. The introduction also of commendatory abbots, the first of whom was appointed in 1528, was to some extent responsible for its decline. Amongst the greatest of its titular prelates were Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, who tried to restore it to some of its former greatness, though their efforts did not meet with much success. Claude de Vert, Prior of Saint-Pierre, Abbeville (d. 1708), was another would-be reformer of the congregation, inspired no doubt by the example of the Maurists.

The abbey-church of Cluny was on a scale commensurate with the greatness of the congregation, and was regarded as one of the wonders of the Middle Ages. It was no less than 555 feet in length, and was the largest church in Christendom until the erection of St. Peter's at Rome. It consisted of five naves, a narthex, or ante-church, and several towers. Commenced by St. Hugh, the sixth abbot, in 1089, it was finished and consecrated by Pope Innocent II in 1131-32, the narthex being added in 1220. Together with the conventual buildings it covered an area of twenty-five acres. At the suppression in 1790 it was bought by the town and almost entirely destroyed. At the present day only one tower and part of a transept remain, whilst a road traverses the site of the nave. The community of the abbey, which had numbered three hundred in the thirteenth century, dwindled down to one hundred in the seventeenth, and when it was suppressed, in common with all the other religious houses in France, its monks numbered only forty.

The spirit and organization of the congregation was a distinct departure from the Benedictine tradition, though its monks continued all along to be recognized as members of the Benedictine family. Previous to its inception every monastery had been independent and autonomous, though the observance of the same rule in all constituted a bond of union; but when Cluny began to throw out offshoots and to draw other houses under its influence, each such house, instead of forming a separate family, was retained in absolute dependence upon the central abbey. The superiors of such houses, which were usually priories, were subject to the Abbot of Cluny and were his nominees, not the elect of their own communities, as is the normal Benedictine custom. Every profession, even in the most distant monastery of the congregation, required his sanction, and every monk had to pass some years at Cluny itself. Such a system cut at the root of the old family ideal and resulted in a kind of feudal hierarchy consisting of one great central monastery and a number of dependencies spread over many lands. The Abbot of Cluny or his representative made annual visitations of the dependent houses, and he had for his assistant in the government of so vast an organization a coadjutor with the title Grand-Prior of Cluny. The abbot's monarchical status was somewhat curtailed after the twelfth century by the holding of general chapters, but it is evident that he possessed a very real power over the whole congregation, so long as he held in his own hands the appointment of all the dependent priors. (For the sources of information as to the rule, government, and conventual observance of the congregation, see bibliography at end of this article.) With regard to the Divine Office, the monks of Cluny conformed to the then prevailing custom, introduced into the monasteries of France by St. Benedict of Aniane, of adding numerous extra devotional exercises, in the shape of psalms (psalmi familiares, speciales, prostrati, and pro tribulatione) and votive offices (Our Lady, The Dead, All Saints, etc.) to the daily canonical hours prescribed by the Benedictine Rule.

The library of Cluny was for many centuries one of the richest and most important in France and the storehouse of a vast number of most valuable MSS. When the abbey was sacked by the Huguenots, in 1562, many of these priceless treasures perished and others were dispersed. Of those that were left at Cluny, some were burned by the revolutionary mob at the time of the suppression in 1790, and others stored away in the Cluny town hall. These latter, as well as others that passed into private hands, have been gradually recovered by the French Government and are now in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. There are also in the British Museum, London, about sixty charters which formerly belonged to Cluny. The "Hotel de Cluny" in Paris, dating from 1334, was formerly the town house of the abbots. In 1833 it was made into a public museum, but apart from the name thus derived, it possesses practically nothing connected with the abbey.

For the rule, constitutions, etc., see BERNARD OF CLUNY, Ordo Cluniacensis in HERRGOTT, Vetus Disciplina Monastica (Paris, 1794); and UDALRIC OF CLUNY, Consuetudines Cluniacensis in P.L., CXLIX (Paris, 1882). For the history of the congregation, etc., DUCKET, Charters and Records of Cluni (Lewes, 1890); MAITLAND, Dark Ages (London, 1845); MABILLON, Annales O. S. B. (Paris, 1703-39), III-V; SAINTE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1728), IV, 1117; HELYOT, Hist. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1792), V; MIGNE, Dict. des abbayes (Paris, 1856); LAVISSE, Hist. de France (Paris, 1901), II, 2; LORAIN, Hist. de l'abbaye de Cluny (Paris, 1845); CHAMPLY, Hist. de Cluny (Macon, 1866); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1896), I; HERZOG AND HAUCK, Realencyklopadie (Leipzig, 1898), III; SACKUR, Die Cluniacenser (Halle a. S., 1892-94).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

John Clynn

(Or CLYN).

Irish Franciscan and annalist, b. about 1300; d., probably, in 1349. His place of birth is unknown, and the date given is only conjecture; but, as he was appointed guardian of the Franciscan convent at Carrick in 1336, it is concluded that he was then at least 30 years of age. He was afterwards in the Franciscan convent at Kilkenny, and there he probably died. He is credited by Ware, in "Writers of Ireland", with having written a work on the kings of England and another on the superiors of his own order; but these works have not been published, and his celebrity rests on his "Annals of Ireland", from the birth of Christ to the year 1349. Latin, the entries are at first meagre and uninteresting; but from 1315 Clynn deals with what he himself saw, and, though such things as the building of a choir and the consecration of an altar would interest only his own order and time, other entries throw much light on the general history of the country. Being Anglo-Irish, he speaks harshly of the native chiefs; but neither does he hesitate to condemn the Anglo-Irish lords, their impatience of restraint, their contempt for the Government at Dublin, their oppression of the poor. His account of the plague in 1348-9 is vivid. Surrounded by dead and dying, he laid down his pen, wondering if any of the sons of Adam would be spared, and the scribe who copied the work adds that at this date it seems the author died. His "Annals" were edited by Richard Butler for the Irish Archæological Society (December, 1849).

WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1764); WEBB, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878).

E.A. D'ALTON

Bernabé Cobo

Born at Lopera in Spain, 1582; died at Lima, Peru, 9 October, 1657. He went to America in 1596, visiting the Antilles and Venezuela and landing at Lima in 1599. Entering the Society of Jesus, 14 October, 1601, he was sent by his superiors in 1615 to the mission of Juli, where, and at Potosí, Cochabamba, Oruro, and La Paz, he laboured until 1618. He was rector of the college of Arequipa from 1618 until 1621, afterwards at Pisco, and finally at Callao in the same capacity, as late as 1630. He was then sent to Mexico, and remained there until 1650, when he returned to Peru. Such in brief was the life of a man whom the past centuries have treated with unparalleled, and certainly most ungrateful, neglect. Father Cobo was beyond all doubt the ablest and most thorough student of nature and man in Spanish America during the seventeenth century. Yet, the first, and almost only, acknowledgement of his worth dates from the fourth year of the nineteenth century. The distinguished Spanish botanist Cavanilles not only paid a handsome tribute of respect to the memory of Father Cobo in an addressed delivered at the Royal Botanical Gardens of Madrid, in 1804, but he gave the name of Cobæa to a genus of plants belonging to the Bignoniaceæ of Mexico, Cobæa scandens being its most striking representative.

Cobo's long residence in both Americas (sixty-one years), his position as a priest and, several times, as a missionary, and the consequently close relations in which he stood to the Indians, as well as to Creoles and half-breeds, gave him unusual opportunities for obtaining reliable information, and he made the fullest use of these. We have from his pen, two works, one of which (and the most important) is, unfortunately, incomplete. It is also stated that he wrote a work on botany in ten volumes, which, it seems, is lost, or at least its whereabouts is unknown today. Of his main work, to which biographers give the title "Historia general de las Indias", and which he finished in 1653, only the first half is known and has appeared in print (four volumes, at Seville, 1890 and years succeeding). The remainder, in which he treats, or claims to have treated, of every geographical and political subdivision in detail, has either never been finished, or is lost. His other book appeared in print in 1882, and forms part of the "History of the New World" mentioned, but he made a separate manuscript of its in 1639, and so it became published as "Historia de la fundación de Lima", a few years before the publication of the principal manuscript. "The History of the New World" places Cobo, as a chronicler and didactic writer, on a plane higher than that occupied by his contemporaries not to speak of his predecessors. It is not a dry and dreary catalogue of events; man appears in it on a stage, and that stage is a conscientious picture of the nature in which man has moved and moves. The value of this work for several branches of science (not only history) is much greater than is believed. The book, only recently published, is very little known and appreciated. The "History of the New World" may, in American literature, be compared with one work only, the "General and Natural history of the Indies" by Oviedo. But Oviedo wrote a full century earlier than Cobo, hence the resemblance is limited to the fact that both authors seek to include all Spanish America -- its natural features as well as its inhabitants. The same may be said of Gomara and Acosta. Cobo enjoyed superior advantages and made good use of them. A century more of knowledge and experience was at his command. Hence we find in his book a wealth of information which no other author of his time imparts or can impart. And that knowledge is systematized and in a measure co-ordinated. On the animals and plants of the new continent, neither Nieremberg, nor Hernçndez, nor Monardes can compare in wealth of information with Cobo. In regard to man, his pre-Columbian past and vestiges, Cobo is, for the South American west coast, a source of primary importance. We are astonished at his many and close observations of customs and manners. His description of some of the principal ruins of South America are usually very correct. In a word it is evident from these two works of Cobo that he was an investigator of great perspicacity, and, for his time, a scientist of unusual merit.

Torres Saldamando, Antiguos Jesuitas del Perç (Lima, 1882); Cabanilles, Discures sobre algunos botçnicos espaûoles del siglo XVII in the Anales de historia natural (Madrid, 1804).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Viatora Coccaleo

A Capuchin friar, so called from his birthplace, Coccaglio in Lombardy, date of birth unknown; d. 1793. For a time he was lector in theology and wrote several works that give him a place among the noteworthy theologians in a period of theological decline. These are: "Tentamina theologico-scholastica" (Bergamo, 1768-74); "Tentaminum theologicorum in moralibus Synopsis" (Venice, 1791); "Instituta moralia" (Milan, 1760). His defence of papal supremacy, "Italus ad Justinum Febronium" (Lucca, 1768; Trent, 1774), is one of the principal apologies against Febronius. Besides writing several works against Jansenism, he took part in the discussion concerning the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the sanctification of Holy Days, made famous by the Synod of Pistoja (1786), and published: "Riflessioni sopra l'origine e il fine della divozione del S. Cuore di Gesù" (Naples, 1780); "Riposta sul dubbio, se la sola Messa basti a santificare le feste" (Bologna, 1781). To these may be added his studies on the text and meaning of the poem of Prosper of Aquitaine, "Contra Ingratos" (2 vols., Brescia, 1756 and 1763) and his work on the philosophic spirit of Prosper's epigrams (Brescia, 1760).

JOHN OF RATISBON, Appendix ad Bibliothec. Script. Capuccinorum (Rome, 1852), 40; SCHEEBEN, Dogmatik, I, 455.

JOHN M. LENHART

Cochabamba

(COCABAMBENSIS).

The city from which this diocese takes its name is the capital of the department of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Founded in 1563 it was called originally Oropesa. It is situated on the Rio de la Rocha and is the second largest city and one of the most important commercial centres of the republic. According to the census of 1902, the population is over 40,000, of whom practically all are Catholics.

The Diocese of Cochabamba was erected by a Bull of Pius IX, 25 June, 1847, and is a suffragan of Charcas (La Plata). It was the fourth diocese established in Bolivia, the Archdiocese of Charcas (La Plata) and the Dioceses of La Paz and Santa Cruz having been created early in the seventeenth century. It comprises the department of Cochabamba and part of the adjoining department of Beni. The population, mostly catholic, in 1902 was over 330,000. Besides a number of schools and charitable institutions the diocese has 55 parishes, 80 churches and chapels, and 160 priests.

Konversations-Lex. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903), s. v.; Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1908).

Martin of Cochem

A celebrated German theologian, preacher and ascetic writer, born at Cochem, a small town on the Moselle, in 1630; died in the convent at Waghäusel, 10 September, 1712. He came of a family devotedly attached to the Faith, and while still young entered the novitiate of the Capuchins, where he distinguished himself by his fervour and his fidelity to the religious rule. After his elevation to the priesthood, he was assigned to a professorship of theology, a position which for several years he filled most creditably. However, it was in another sphere that he was to exercise his zeal and acquire fame. Of the evils which befell Europe in consequence of the Thirty Years War, the plague was by no means the least, and when, in 1666, it made its appearance in the Rhenish country, such were its ravages that it became necessary to close the novitiates and houses of study. Just at this crisis, Father Martin was left without any special charge and, in company with his fellow monks, he devoted himself to the bodily and spiritual comfort of the afflicted. What most distressed him was the religious ignorance to which a large number of the faithful had fallen victims on account of being deprived of their pastors. To combat this sad condition, he resolved to compose little popular treatises on the truths and duties of religion, and in 1666 he published at Cologne a résumé of Christian doctrine that was very well received. It was a revelation to his superiors, who strongly encouraged the author to continue in this course.

Thenceforth Father Martin made a specialty of popular preaching and religious writing and, in the Archdioceses of Trier and Ingelheim, which he traversed thoroughly, multitudes pressed about him, and numerous conversions followed. The zealous priest continued these active ministrations up to the time of his death, and even when he had passed his eightieth year he still went daily to the chapel of his convent, where, with the aid of an ear-trumpet, he heard the confessions of the sinners who flocked to him. The intervals between missions he devoted to his numerous writings, the most voluminous of which is an ecclesiastical history in 2 vols, fol., composed for apologetic purposes and provoked by the attacks made upon the Church by Protestantism. However, the author brought it down only to the year 1100. Father Martin's other works embrace a great variety of subjects: the life of Christ, legends of the saints, edifying narratives, the setting forth of certain points in Christian asceticism, forms of prayer, methods to be followed for the worthy reception of the sacraments, etc. These widely different themes have as points of similarity a pleasing, graceful style, great erudition, and a truly seraphic eloquence. They bespeak for their author sincere piety and deep religious sentiment, coupled with an intimate knowledge of the popular heart and the special needs of the time. But the best known of all the learned Capuchin's works is unquestionably "Die heilige Messe", upon which, according to his own statement, he spent three entire years, perusing Holy Writ, the councils, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the lives of the saints, in order to condense into a small volume a properly abridged account of the Holy Sacrifice. As soon as it appeared this book proved a delight to the Catholics of Germany, nor has it yet lost any of its popularity, and, since its translation into several languages, it may be said to have acquired universal renown.

It demanded a great expenditure of energy on the part of the worthy religious to bring these undertakings to a successful issue. Even when in his convent he spent most of the day in directing souls and following the observances prescribed by the Capuchin Rule, hence it was time set aside for sleep that he was wont to give to his literary labours. Sometimes after the Office of Matins he would obtain permission of the superior to go to Frankfort to confer with his publisher and, this accomplished, he would return on foot to his convent at Königstein, catechizing little children, hearing confessions, and visiting the sick along the way. While still in the midst of his labours he was attacked by an illness to which he soon succumbed, at the age of eighty-two. The works published during Father Martin's lifetime are: "Die Kirchenhistorie nach der Methode des Baronius und Raynaldus bis 1100" (Dillingen, 1693): "Die christliche Lehre"; "Heilige Geschichten und Exempel"; "Wohlriechender Myrrhengarten" (Cologne, 1693); "Büchlein über den Ablass" (Dillingen, 1693); "Exorcismen und für Kranke" (Frankfort, 1695); "Goldener Himmelsschlüssel" (Frankfort, 1695); "Gebetbuch für Soldaten" (Augsburg, 1698); "Anmuthungen während der heiligen Messe" (Augsburg, 1697); "Die Legenden der Heiligen" (Augsburg, 1705); "Leben Christi" (Frankfort, 1689; Augsburg, 1708); "Gebete unter der heiligen Messe" (Augsburg, 1698); "Kern der heiligen Messe" (Cologne, 1699); "Liliengarten" (Cologne, 1699); "Gebetbuch für heilige Zeiten" (Augsburg, 1704); "Die heilige Messe für die Weitleute" (Cologne, 1704); "Traktat über die göttlichen Vortrefflichkeiten" (Mainz, 1707); "Geistlicher Baumgarten" (Mainz and Heidelberg, 1709); "Neue mystische Goldgruben" (Cologne, 1709); "Exemepelbuch" (Augsburg, 1712). This list does not include all the author's writings. In 1896 there appeared a small work never before published, "Das Gebet des Herzens", which at the end of its third year went into a seventh edition.

ILG, Geist des heiligen Franciscus Seraphicus (Augsburg, 1883); Etudes franciscaines (Paris), III, 448; Analecta Ord. Min. Cap., XXIII, 279; SISTER MARIA BERNARDINE, Martin von Cochem, sein Leben, sein Wirken, seine Zeit (Mainz, 1886).

F. CANDIDE.

Diocese of Cochin

(COCHINENSIS) on the Malabar coast, India.

The diocese was erected and constituted a suffragan of the Diocese of Goa, of which it had previously formed a part, by the Bull "Pro excellenti praeeminentia" of Paul IV, 4 February, 1558 (cf. Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae Regum, I, 193). It was later reorganized according to the Concordat of 23 June, 1886, between Leo XIII and King Luiz of Portugal and the Constitution "Humanae Salutis Auctor" of the same pope, 1 September, 1886. It is suffragan to the patriarchal See of Goa (cf. Julio Biker, Collecçao de Tractados, XIV, 112-437). The diocese consists of two strips of territory along the sea-coast, the first about fifty miles long, by eight in its broadest part, the second thirty miles in length. There are two important towns, Cochin and Alleppi (Alapalli) in which the higher educational and charitable institutions of the diocese are situated.

I. HISTORY

The chief religions professed in Malabar at the arrival of the Portuguese were: Hinduism, Christianity (the Christians of St. Thomas or Nestorians), Islam, and Judaism, the last represented by a large colony of Jews. From these the Catholic community was recruited, mostly from the Nestorians and the Hindus. Islam also contributed a fair share, especially when Portugal was supreme on this coast; among the Jews conversions were rare. To Portugal belongs the glory of having begun regular Catholic missionary work in India, and Cochin has the honour of being the cradle of Catholicism in India. The first missionaries to India were eight Franciscan friars, who set sail from Lisbon on the fleet of Pedro Alvarez Cabral (q.v.), 9 March, 1500: Father Henrique de Coimbra, Superior; Fathers Gaspar, Francisco da Cruz, Simao de Guimaraens, Luiz do Salvador, Masseu, Pedro Netto, and Brother Joao da Vitoria. Three of them were slain at Calicut in the massacre of 16 November, 1500. The survivors arrived at Cochin on or about the 26th of that month, and settled there (except the superior, who went back with the fleet to obtain more help for the mission), thus laying the foundation of the Diocese of Cochin (Histor. Seraf. Chron. da Ordem de S. Francisco na Provincia de Portugal, III, 489, 494, 495). They were followed by large contingents of zealous missionaries, who worked from the city of Cochin as a centre. The harvest of souls was rich, the Christians multiplied along the coast and in the interior, and in course of time a bishop was assigned to them

The Nestorian Christians in the vicinity of Cochin naturally attracted the attention of the missionaries, and Fathers Simao de Guimaraens and Luiz do Salvador were soon occupied in refuting their errors and reforming their discipline and customs (Hist. Seraf., III, 497). These two missionaries were the pioneers of the Faith among the Nestorian Christians. Members of the same order continued this missionary work till the middle of the sixteenth century, when these missions were handed over to the Jesuits, who continued the good work with such earnestness and zeal that most of the Nestorian Christians were converted before 1600. The chief public record of their conversion is to be found in the Proces of the Synod of Diamper (of Udiamperur), held in June, 1599, by Alexio de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, Metropolitan and Primate of the East ("Bull. Patron. Por. reg.", a collection of papal and royal documents pertaining to the Portughese missions in India, App. tom. I, 147 sqq.; see also "Subsidium ad Bull. Patr. Por.", Alleppi, 1903). In December, 1502, the Nestorian or Syrian Christians (they used the Syrian language in their liturgy) presented to Vasco da Gama, who had arrived at Cochin, the sceptre of their former kings, and applied to him for assistance against their Mohammedan neighhours. Gama formally accepted the sceptre in the name of the King of Portugal. The Syrian bishop of those Christians promised obedience to the pope through the Franciscan missioriaries and two Nestorian priests accompanied Gama to Lisbon en route for Rome. Thus began the protectorate of the Portuguese over the Syrian Christians, a protectorate which lasted for 160 years (cf. Joao de Barras, "Asia", Dec. I, bk. V, ch. viii; also "Historia Serafica"). Till 1542 the Franciscans were the only regular missionaries in India, though they had the cooperation of some secular priests, as Father Pedro Gonsalves, Vicar of Santa Cruz church in the city of Cochin, and father Miguel Vaz, a zealous preacher of the Faith, as well as of some isolated members of other religious communities, who had come out as chaplains to the fleets ("Commentarios do Grande Affonso d'Albuquerque", 3d ed., 1774, I, ch. v, 19-20), and "Ethiopia Oriental", II, bk. II, ch. i).

Among the pioneer priests of Cochin mention should be made of the Franciscans Joao d'Elvas and Pedro d'Amarante, who till 1507 preached the Gospel at Vypeen, Palliport, Cranganore, and other important places; Father Manuel de S. Mathias with his eleven companions, who laboured for the conversion of the pagans at Porroead, Quilon, Trivellam, and elsewhere. Father Vincent de Lagos, who in 1540 established the college of Cranganore to train the Nestorian Christians in the purity of Catholic Faith, a college highly praised by St. Francis Xavier, and the first built in India. In 1542 it had eighty students (Amado, Hist. da Egreja em Portugal e colonias, Vol. VlI, pt. II, 117-21).

After St. Francis Xavier's arrival in India, 6 May, 1542, the Society of Jesus quickly spread over India, and the members were always most successful in the missions under their charge. St. Francis often visited Cochin, where the citizens gave him the church of Madre de Deus, and asked him to establish in the city a residence of the Society. It was accordingly founded by Father Balthazar Gago, S.J., in l550. In the same year Father Nicolao Lancelot, S.J., built the residence and college of Quilon, and Affonso Cipriano, S.J., the residence of Mylapore, soon after the residence and college of Punicail were established, and the residence of Manar. In 1560 the King of Portugal built for the Society of Jesus the college of Cochin, and in 1562 a novitiate of the Society was established there. In 1601 the Jesuit Province of Malabar was founded, and Cochin was made the residence of the provincial. Among the early Jesuits must be mentioned in addition to St. Francis Xavier, foremost of missionaries, Fathers Mansilha, Criminal, B. Nunes, H. Henriques, F. Peres, F. Rodrigues; Brothers Adam Francisco, N. Nunes. Later, the Dominicans, Augustinians, and other orders followed the Society of Jesus to India. The Dominicans built their monastery and college at Cochin in 1553; some years later their example was followed by the Augustinians, and still later by the Capuchins. Cochin thus became the stronghold of the Faith, and it was the missionaries of Cochin who carried the Gospel throughout all Southern India and Ceylon, everywhere establishing missions, and building churches, charitable and educational institutions, all of which were endowed by the kings of Portugal.

Apart from the heroic zeal of the priests, the most powerful element in the propagation of the Faith was the protection the Portuguese Government always accorded to the converts. It provided them with good situations, employing them in civil offices, freed them the molestations of their masters, elevated them in the social scale, exempted them from the operation of Hindu law, appointed for them a judicial tribunal composed of Catholics, which in rural districts was presided over by the local priest. It induced the rajahs to treat the converts kindly, and obliged them to allow their converted subjects all the civil rights, e.g. of inheritance, which their Hindu relatives enjoyed. ("Collecçao de Tractados", treaties made with the rajahs of Asia and East Africa, passim in the first thirteen vols; also "Archivo Portuguez Oriental" Nova Goa, 1861, Fasc. III, parts I and II passim; "Oriente Conquistado", Bombay reprint, 1881, I, II, P. Jarric, S.J., "Thesaurus Rerum Indicarum", Cologne, 1615, I, III, on the Malabar Missions of the Society.)

The above-mentioned Bull of Paul IV, by which the diocese was constituted, raised the collegiate church of the Holy Cross (Santa Cruz), the parish church of Cochin, to the dignity of cathedral of the diocese, and established therein a chapter consisting of five dignitaries and twelve canons. At the same time the pope gave the patronage of the new diocese and see to the kings of Portugal (Bull. Patr. Port. Reg., I, 194).

Until 1506 Hindu law, which was rigorously observed, forbade the use of lime and stone in other constructions than temples. Hence the early Portuguese, to avoid displeasing the rajah, built their houses of wood. Finally the viceroy, Francisco de Almeida, induced the Rajah of Cochin to permit him the use of lime and stone, and on 3 May, 1506, the first stone for the fortress and city was laid by the viceroy with great pomp. It was the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross, which thus became the patronal feast of the city, and gave to the parish church its title. The church of the Holy Cross (Santa Cruz) was begun in, or rather before, 1506, for in l505 we find Portuguese soldiers contributing towards the construction of the church of Cochin 1000 xerafins (about $150 a large sum four hundred years ago), the result of an auction of the rich booty of a naval combat (Gaspar Correa, "Lendas da India", I, 522; II, 182). Some years later this church was raised to collegiate rank, endowed by the king, and provided with a vicar and six beneficed ecclesiastics. It was a magnificent buildings the mother church of the ancient Diocese of Cochin, which the Malabar, Coromandel and Fishery boasts, and Ceylon once obeyed and under whose teaching and discipline they flourished. There are now not less than eleven bishoprics in the territory of the original Diocese of Cochin. The first Bishop of Cochin was Dominican, Father Jorge Tremudo, an illustrious missionary on this coast. The Brief "Pastoralis officii cura nos admonet" of Gregory XIII, 13 Dec., 1572, permited the Bishop of Cochin, on occasion of the vacancy of the See of Goa, to take possession of that see and administer it till the Holy See provided for the vacancy. This is why many bishops of Cochin were appointed archbishops of Goa.

In 1577 Brother Joao Gonsalves, S.J., engraved at Cochin, for the first time, the Malealam type, from which was printed the first Malealam book, "Outlines of Christian Doctrine", written in Portuguese by St. Francis Xavier for the use of children. In 1578 Fr. Joao de Faria, S.J., engraved at Punicail the Tamil type, with which the "Flos Sanctorum" was printed in Tamil for the Fishery Coast (Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo, "India Orient. Christiana" Rome, 1794, 179 sqq.; "Oriente Conquistado", Vol. I, Pt. I, Cong. I, Div. I, section 23).

Cochin was taken, 6 Jan. 1663, by the Dutch, after a siege of six months. The city was reduced in size; the clergy were expelled; the monasteries and colleges, bishop's palace and 2 hospitals, 13 churches and chapels, were razed to the ground. The church of St. Francis of Assisi, belonging to the Franciscan monastery was spared by the conquerors and converted to their religious use. When the English expelled the Dutch, 20 October, 1795, they kept this church for the same purpose; it stands today a witness to the events of the past four centuries, and is considered the oldest existing church in India. The magnificent cathedral was turned by the Dutch into a warehouse for merchandise. In 1806 it was blown up by the English.

From 1663 until the diocese was reorganized in 1886, the bishops of Cochin resided at Quilon. In 1896 work was begun on the Cathedral of the Holy Cross of Cochin by Bishop Ferreira amid great sacrifices. In April, 1897, when almost complete, the building collapsed, entailing a heavy loss. Bishop Ferreira died at Goa, 4 May, the same year. Bishop Oliveira Xavier took charge of the diocese in March, 1898, removed the debris of the fallen building and successfully carried the work to completlon. The cathedral was opened for Divine Worship, 9 August, 1903. Brother Moscheni, the famous Italian painter of India, belonging to the Jesuit mission of Mangalore, was secured to decorate the church, but hardly finished the sanctuary when he died, 14 November, 1905. The cathedral was consecrated 19 November, 1905, by Bishop Pereira of Damaum, Archbishop ad honorem of Cranganore.

II. RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS

The Church of Cochin has suffered some rigorous persecutions. The most severe was that of 1780, commenced by Nagam Pillay, Dewan of Travancore, in which 20,000 converts fled to the mountains, to escape his cruelties, and many died as martyrs. Father Joao Falco S.J., was the only priest left to console the sufferers. There were other less severe persecutions in 1787, 1809, and 1829 (Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo, "India Orient. Christiana", 165 sqq.: also "Church History of Travancore", Madras, 1903, lntroduction, 55). In a general way there has always been a kind of mild persecution or animosity on the part of Hindu Governments and authorities against Christians. The growth of the Catholic Church is at present affected especially by the "Law of Disability" in force in the Native States of Malabar, by which a convert becomes a stranger to his family, and forfeits all rights of inheritance. The government schools, in which the young are reared in religious indifferentism, form also a remarkable hindrance to conversions, especially among the higher classes.

III. STATISTICS

In all, twenty bishops of Cochin have actually taken possession of the see ("Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente", I, III; Annuario da Arch. de Goa", 1907). The total population of the diocese is 398,000; Catholics, 97,259. The number of conversions averages 300 a year. The diocese contains 30 parishes, 9 missions, 77 churches and chapels, 62 secular priests (58 natives of India), 4 Jesuits; Anglo-vernacular parochial schools, with an attendance of 480 boys and 128 girls, 77 vernacular parochial schools, with an attendance of 6592. The Sisters of the Canossian Congregation number 15 in two convents. The following educational and charitable institutions are at Cochin: Santa Cruz High School for boys, under the Jesuit Fathers, and St. Mary's High school for girls under the Canossian Sisters, both of which prepare students for the Indian universities; they have an average daily attendance respectively of 335 and 153; at Alleppi the Jesuit Fathers conduct the Leo XIII High School for boys, with an average daily attendance of 380, an orphanage with 16 orphans; a catechumenate with 5 catechumens, a printing office; an industrial school. They also have charge of the preparatory seminary of the diocese, in which 20 students are now enrolled. For philosophy and theology students are sent either to the patriarchal Seminary at Rachol, Goa, or to the papal seminary at Kandy, Ceylon; at the former there are now 6, at the latter 5, students from Cochin. The Canossian Sisters at Alleppi conduct the following institutions for girls: St. Joseph's Intermediate School, attendance 160, a normal training School, attendance 7; a technical School, attendance 29; an orphanage with 56 orphans; a catechumenate, attendance 21, and a dispensary for the benefit of the poor. The religious associations of the diocese are as follows: confraternities, 64, congregations of the Third Order of St Francis, 3; Association of the Holy Family, 1; Conferences of St. Vincent de Paul, 2; Society for the relief of the Souls in Purgatory, 2; Sodalities of the Children of Mary 6, Misericordia Confraternity, 1; The Apostleship of Prayer is established in all the parish churches, and the Association of Christian Doctrine in all churches and chapels of the diocese. (See GOA; PORTUGAL; INDIA.)

Besides documents mentioned above see also Madras Cath. Directory (1908); Mullbauer, Kahl. Miss. in Ostindien (Freiburg, 1852); De Silva, The Cath. in India (Bombay, 1885); Werner, Orb. Terrarum (Freiburg, 1890).

J. MONTEIRO D'AGUIAR

Jacques-Denis Cochin

A preacher and philanthropist, born in Paris, 1 January, 1726; died there 3 June, 1783. His father, Claude-Denis Cochin (d. 1786), was a famous botanist. Jacques-Denis followed a course of theological studies in the Sorbonne and was graduated with the degree of Doctor. In 1755 he was ordained priest. The next year he was given charge of the parish of Saint-Jacques-du-Haut-Pas. There he spent his whole life working for the material as well as the spiritual betterment of his people. He won great fame for the unction and strength of his preaching. His published works include: Four books of Sunday sermons (Paris, 1786-1808); "Exhortations on the Feasts, Fasts and Ceremonies of the Church" (Paris, 1778); "Retreat Exercises" (Paris, 1778); "Spiritual Writings", a posthumous work published by his brother (Paris, 1784). Cochin is noted especially for his philanthropy. The needs of his own parish suggested the foundation of a hospital. The idea, conceived in 1780, resulted in the completion of a building of which The Sisters of Charity took charge. The inscription on the building, Pauper clamavit et Dominus exaudivit eum, is an index of Cochin's intentions. He devoted his whole fortune to the work. The hospital was inaugurated with thirty-eight beds; today the number is nearly four hundred. It was originally called Hopital Saint-Jacques. In 1801 the General Council of the Paris hospitals gave it the name of its charitable founder, which it still preserves.

J.B. DELAUNAY

Pierre-Suzanne-Augustin Cochin

Born in Paris, 12 Dec., 1823; died at Versailles, 13 March, 1872. He took an early interest in economical and political questions and contributed articles to the "Annales de Charité" and "Le Correspondant". In 1850 he was elected vice-mayor, and in 1853 mayor of the tenth district of Paris. His publications won for him membership in the Académie des sciences morales et politiques (1864). He was at that time prominent among the "Liberal Catholics", an ardent friend of Montalembert and Lacordaire, and was supported by his party for the office of deputy of Paris. He received 6000 votes, but his democratic opponent won by an overwhelming majority. Among his many religious, pedagogical, and sociological works we may name: "Essai sur la vie, les méthodes d'instruction et d'éducation, et les établissements de Pestalozzi" (Paris, 1848); "Lettre sur l'état du paupérisme en Angleterre" (Paris, 1854); "Progrès de la science et de l'industrie au point de vue chrétien" (Paris, 1854); "Abolition de l'esclavage" (Paris, 1861), crowned by the French Academy; "Quelques mots sur la vie de Jésus de Renan" (1863); "Condition des ouvriers français" (1862); "Espérances chrétiennes" (posthumous publication).

J.B. DELAUNAY

Johann Cochlæus

(Properly Dobeneck), surnamed Cochlæus (from cochlea, a snail shell) after his birthplace Wendelstein, near Schwabach.

Humanist and Catholic controversialist, b. 1479; d. 11 Jan., 1552, in Breslau. His early education he received at the house of his uncle, Hirspeck. About 1500 he began his humanistic studies under Grienniger at Nuremberg. From 1504 he pursued his studies at Cologne and there relations sprang up between Cochlæus and the champions of humanism. In 1510 he obtained the rectorate in the Latin school of St. Lawrence in Nuremberg, where the "Quadrivium Grammatices" (1511 and repeatedly afterwards) and the "Tetrachordum Musices" appeared. At Nuremberg he became an intimate friend of Pirkheimer. With the latter's three nephews he went to Bologna to continue his humanistic and legal studies. His main object, however, was to pursue a course of theology, in which he obtained his doctorate in 1517, and then by the advice of Pirkheimer went to Rome. There, under the influence of the Oratorio del Divino Amore, Cochlæus turned his attention to the cultivation of a religious life. Ordained at Rome, he went to Frankfort, and after some hesitation, arising no doubt from consideration for his friends, he entered the arena as the opponent of the Lutheran movement. His first works were "De Utroque Sacerdotio" (1520) and several smaller writings published in rapid succession. In 1521 he met the nuncio Aleander at Worms and worked untiringly to bring about the reconciliation of Luther. During the following years he wrote tracts against Luther's principal theses on the doctrine of justification, on the freedom of the will, and on the teaching of the Church (especially the important work, "De Gratia Sacramentorum", 1522; "De Baptismo parvulorum", 1523; "A commentary on 154 Articles"; etc). Luther, to the vexation of Cochlæus wrote in answer only a single work, "Adversus Armatum Virum Cocleum".

After a short sojourn at Rome Cochlæus accompanied Compeggio to the negotiations at Nuremberg and Ratisbon. The Lutheran movement and the Peasants' War drove him to Cologne in 1525. From there he wrote against the rebellion and Luther, its real author. In 1526 he received a canonry at Mayence and accompanied Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg to the Diet of Speyer. After Emser's death Cochlæus took his place as secretary to Duke George of Saxony, whom he defended against an attack of Luther based on the false charge of an alliance between the Catholic princes at Breslau (cf. The Affaire of Otto v. Pack). Conjointly with Duke George he laboured strenuously in 1530, to refute the Augsburg Confession, and later directed against Melanchthon, its author, his bitter "Philippicae". Because of a pamphlet against Henry VIII of England he was transferred in 1535 to a canonry in Meissen. After the duke's death, owing to the advance of the Reformation, his further stay in Saxony became quite impossible. For the time being he found a refuge as canon first at Breslau and later at Eichstatt. With indomitable ardour he published pamphlet after pamphlet against Luther and Melanchthon, against Zwingli, Butzer, Bullinger, Cordatus, Ossiander, etc. Almost all of these publications, however, were written in haste and bad temper, without the necessary revision and theological thoroughness, consequently they produced no effect on the masses. His greatest work against Luther is his strictly historical "Commentaria de Actis et Sciptis M. Luther" (extending to his death), an armoury of Catholic polemics for all succeeding time. Forced to resign his benefice at Eichstatt in 1548, Cochlæus remained for a short time in Mayence to edit a work of Abbot Conrad Braun. In 1549, however, he returned to Breslau where he died shortly after. Naturally of a quiet and studious disposition he was drawn into the arena of polemics by the religious schism. There he developed a productivity and zeal unparalleled by any other Catholic theologian of his time. He did not, however, possess the other requisites for success in the same degree. Among his two hundred and two publications (catalogued in Spahn, p. 341 sq.) Are to be found, besides tracts bearing on the topics of the day, also editions of ecclesiastical writers and historical publications. Among these latter the work "Historiae Hussitarum XII Libri" (1549) is of great value even today because of the authorities used therein.

De Weldige-Kremer, De Joannis Cochlaei Vita at Scriptis (Münster, 1865); Otto, Johannes Cochlæus (Breslau, 1874); Gess, Johannes Cochlæus (Berlin, 1898); Schlecht, IV Cochlæusbriefe in Histor. Jahrbuch XX (1899), 768 sq.

JOSEPH SAUER

Co-consecrators

Co-consecrators are the bishops who assist the presiding bishop in the act of consecrating a new bishop. It is a very strict rule of the Church that there should be two such assistant bishops, or three bishops in all-though an exception is made for missionary countries where it is practically impossible to bring so many bishops together, the Holy See there allowing two priests to act as assistants to the consecrator. The part assigned by the Roman Pontifical in its present form to the assistant bishops is, after helping to place the book of the Gospels on the shoulders of the elect, to join the consecrator in laying hands on his head, and in saying over him the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. But it is the consecrator alone who, with extended hands, says the Eucharistic prayer, which constitutes the "essential form" of the rite. In the Oriental rites, Uniat and schismatic, no words of any kind are assigned to the assistant bishops; this was also the case with the ancient Western rites, the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum being a late medieval addition.

HISTORY OF THE USAGE

The earliest times the ides was to Assemble as many bishops as possible for the election and consecration of a new bishop, and it became the rule that the comprovincials at least should participate under the presidency of the metropolitan or primate. But this was found impracticable in a matter of such frequency; so in thc Council of Nic a we find it enacted that "a bishop ought to be chosen by all the bishops of his province, but if that is impossible because of some urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, let three bishops at least assemble and proceed to the consecration, having the written permission of the absent" (can. iv). There was, indeed, one exception, which is referred to in the letter of Pope Siricius to the African bishops (386), "That a single bishop, unless he be the Bishop of Rome, must not ordain a bishop". This exception has long since been discontinued, but it bears witness to the reason for which the intervention of several bishops was ordinarily rerequired, a reason expressly stated by St. Isidore (about 601) in his "De Eccles. Off." (Bk. II, ch. v, no. 11 in P. L., LXXXIII, 785): "[The custom] that a bishop should not be ordained by one bishop, but by all the comprovincial bishops, is known to have been instituted on account of heresies, and in order that the tyrannical authority of one person should not attempt anything contrary to the faith of the Church." Such a consideration was not applicable to the case of the Bishop of Rome. In these provisions of the earlier councils the conditions of the time were presupposed. Gradually other conditions supervened, and the right of appointing to the episcopate was reserved to the metropolitans in the case of simple bishops, and to the Holy See in the case of metropolitans, and finally in all cases to the Holy See. But the practice of requiring at least three bishops for the consecration ceremony, though no longer needed for its ancient purpose, has always been retained as befitting the solemnity of the occasion.

THE MODE OF THEIR CO-OPERATION

The question has been raised, Do the co-consecrators equally with the consecrator impart the sacramental gift to the candidate? That they do has been contended on the ground of a well-known passage in Mart ne's "De Antiquis Ecclesi Ritibus" (II, viii, art. 10), in which he says that "beyond the possibility of a doubt they are not witnesses only but co-operators." But Mart ne's reference to Ferrandus's "Brevatio Canonum" (P. L., LXVII, 948), and through Ferrandus to the decree of Nic n and the words of St. Isidore already quoted, shows that his meaning is that they are not mere witnesses to the fact that the consecration has taken place, but, by taking part in it, make themselves responsible for its taking place. Moreover, though Gasparri (De Sacr . Ordinatione, II, 265) thinks otherwise, it is not easy to see how the assistant bishops can be said to comply with the essentials of a sacramental administration. They certainly do not in the use of the Oriental rites, nor did they in the use of the ancient Western rite, for they pronounced no words which partook of the nature of an essential form. And, though in the modern rite they say the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, which approximate to the requirements of such a form, it is not conceivable that the Church by receiving these words into her rite wished to transfer the office of essential form from the still-persisting Eucharistic Preface, which had held it previously and was perfectly definite, to new words which by themselves are altogether indefinite.

Besides the authors quoted, see THOMASSIN, Vetus et nova Ecclesi Disciplina, II, pt, II, Bk II. ch. iv; DUCHESNE, Origines du. culte chrétien (Paris, 1905); Pontificale Romanum, ed. CATALANI (Paris, 1801); MARTINUCCI. Manuale ss. C rimoniarum (Rome, 1869); KENRICK, Form of the Consecration of a Bishop (Baltimore, 1886); WOODS, Episcopal Consecration in the Anglican Church in The Messenger (New York, November, 1907); BERNARD, Cours de liturgie romaine: Le Pontifical (Paris, 1902), I, 318-22.

SYDNEY E. SMITH

Cocussus

(Cocusus, Cocussus, Cocusus).

A titular see of Armenia. It was a Roman station on the road from Cilicia to Caesarea, and belonged first to Cappadocia and later to Armenia Secunda. St. Paul the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople, was exiled thither by Constantius and put to death by the Arians in 350 (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., II, xxvi). It was also the place of exile to which St. John Chrysostom was banished by Arcadius; his journey, often interrupted by fever, lasted seventeen days (Sozomen, Hist., eccl., VIII, xxii). The great doctor was received most kindly by the bishop and a certain Dioscurus. He lived three years at Cocussus (404-407), and wrote thence many letters to the deaconess Olympias and his friends. The Greek panegyric of St. Gregory the Illuminator, Apostle of Armenia, attributed to St. John Chrysostom (Migne, P.G., LXIII, 943), is not authentic; an Armenian text, edited by Alishan (Venice, 1877), may be genuine. Cocussus appears in the "Synecdemus" of Hierccles and in the "Notitiae episcopatuum", as late as the twelfth century, as a suffragan of Melitene. The name of St. John Chrysostom's host is unknown. Bishop Domnus was represented at Chalcedon in 451. Longinus subscribed the letter of the bishops of Armenia Secunda to Emperor Leo in 458. John subscribed at Constantinople in 553 for his metropolitan. Another John was present at the Trullan Council in 692 (Lequien, I, 452). The army of the first crusaders passed by Cocussus. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there were Armenian bishops of Cocussus. It is today a village called Guksun by the Turks, Kokison by the Armenians, in the caza of Hadjin, villayet of Adana. The site is most picturesque, but the climate is very severe during winter, owing to the altitude, 4000 feet above the level of the sea.

Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. Of Asia Minor, passim; Alishan, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 217-21.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Codex

The name given to a manuscript in leaf form, distinguishing it from a roll. The codex seems to have come into use about the beginning of the fourth century; the material ordinarily employed in it was parchment, but discovery has shown that papyrus was sometimes used in the making of codices, though really too brittle to be a satisfactory material. The great manuscripts of the Bible are in codex form and generally of parchment; hence the name, Codex Vaticanus etc. For convenience' sake, we group here the four great codices of the Greek Bible, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, together with the Greek Codex Bezae, so remarkable for it's textual peculiarities; also, Codex Amiatinus, the greatest manuscript of the Vulgate. For other codices, see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE, or the particular designation, as ARMAGH, BOOK OF; KELLS, BOOK OF; etc.

Codex Alexandrinus

A most valuable Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, so named because it was brought to Europe from Alexandria and had been the property of the patriarch of that see. For the sake of brevity, Walton, in his polyglot Bible, indicated it by the letter A and thus set the fashion of designating Biblical manuscripts by such symbols. Codex A was the first of the great uncials to become known to the learned world. When Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is believed to have brought the codex with him. Later he sent it as a present to King James I of England; James died before the gift was presented, and Charles I, in 1627, accepted it in his stead. It is now the chief glory of the British Museum in its manuscript department and is on exhibition there.

Codex A contains the Bible of the Catholic Canon, including therefore the deuterocanonical books and portions of books belonging to the Old Testament. Moreover, it joins to the canonical books of Machabees, the apocryphal III and IV Machabees, of very late origin. To the New Testament are added the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the homily which passed under the title of II Epistle of Clement -- the only copies then known to exist. These are included in the list of New Testament books which is prefixed and seem to have been regarded by the scribe as part of the New Testament. The same list shows that the Psalms of Solomon, now missing, were originally contained in the volume, but the space which separates this book from the others on the list indicates that it was not ranked among New Testament books. An "Epistle to Marcellinus" ascribed to St. Athanasius is inserted as a preface to the Psalter, together with Eusebius's summary of the Psalms; Psalm 151 and certain selected canticles of the Old Testament are affixed, and liturgical uses of the psalms indicated. Not all the books are complete. In the Old Testament there is to be noted particularly the lacuna of thirty psalms, from 5:20, to 80:11; moreover, of Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-5, 16-19; 16:6-9; I Kings 12:20-14:9. The New Testament has lost the first twenty-five leaves of the Gospel of St. Matthew, as far as chapter 25:6, likewise the two leaves running from John 6:50, to 8:52 (which, however, as the amount of space shows, omitted the formerly much disputed passage about the adulterous woman), and three leaves containing II Corinthians 4:13-12:6. One leaf is missing from I Clement and probably two at the end of II Clement. Codex A supports the Sixtine Vulgate in regard to the conclusion of St. Mark and John 5:4, but, like all Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century, omits the text of the three heavenly witnesses, I John 5:7. The order of the Old Testament books is peculiar. In the New Testament the order is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, with Hebrews placed before the Pastoral Epistles. Originally one large volume, the codex is now bound in four volumes, bearing on their covers the arms of Charles I. Three volumes contain the Old Testament, and the remaining volume the New Testament with Clement. The leaves, of thin vellum, 12 3/4 inches high by 10 inches broad, number at present 773, but were originally 822, according to the ordinary reckoning. Each page has two columns of 49 to 51 lines.

The codex is the first to contain the major chapters with their titles, the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons complete (Scrivener). A new paragraph is indicated by a large capital and frequently by spacing, not by beginning a new line; the enlarged capital is placed in the margin of the next line, though, curiously, it may not correspond to the beginning of the paragraph or even of a word. The manuscript is written in uncial characters in a hand at once firm, elegant, simple; the greater part of Volume III is ascribed by Gregory to a different hand from that of the others; two hands are discerned in the New Testament by Woide, three by Sir E. Maunde Thompson and Kenyon -- experts differ on these points. The handwriting is generally judged to belong to the beginning or middle of the fifth century or possibly to the late fourth. An Arabic note states that it was written by Thecla the martyr; and Cyril Lucar the Patriarch adds in his note that tradition says she was a noble Egyptian woman and wrote the codex shortly after the Nicene Council. But nothing is known of such a martyr at that date, and the value of this testimony is weakened by the presence of the Eusebian Canons (d. 340) and destroyed by the insertion of the letter of Athanasius (d. 373). On the other hand, the absence of the Euthalian divisions is regarded by Scrivener as proof that it can hardly be later than 450. This is not decisive, and Gregory would bring it down even to the second half of the fifth century. The character of the letters and the history of the manuscript point to Egypt as its place of origin.

The text of Codex A is considered one of the most valuable witnesses to the Septuagint. It is found, however, to bear a great affinity to the text embodied in Origen's Hexapla and to have been corrected in numberless passages according to the Hebrew. The text of the Septuagint codices is in too chaotic a condition, and criticism of it too little advanced, to permit of a sure judgment on the textual value of the great manuscripts. The text of the New Testament here is of a mixed character. In the Gospels, we have the best example of the so-called Syrian type of text, the ancestor of the traditional and less pure form found in the textus receptus. The Syrian text, however, is rejected by the great majority of scholars in favour of the "neutral" type, best represented in the Codex Vaticanus. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and still more in St. Paul's Epistles and the Apocalypse, Codex A approaches nearer, or belongs, to the neutral type. This admixture of textual types is explained on the theory that A or its prototype was not copied from a single manuscript, but from several manuscripts of varying value and diverse origin. Copyist's errors in this codex are rather frequent.

Codex Alexandrinus played an important part in developing the textual criticism of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament. Grabe edited the Old Testament at Oxford in 1707-20, and this edition was reproduced at Zurich 1730-32, and at Leipzig, 1750-51, and again at Oxford, by Field, in 1859; Woide published the New Testament in 1786, which B. H. Cowper reproduced in 1860. The readings of Codex A were noted in Walton's Polyglot, 1657, and in every important collation since made. Baber published an edition of the Old Testament in facsimile type in 1816-28; but all previous editions were superseded by the magnificent photographic facsimile of both Old and New Testaments produced by the care of Sir E. Maunde Thompson (the New Testament in 1879, the Old Testament in 1881-83), with an introduction in which the editor gives the best obtainable description of the codex (London, 1879-80).

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Amiatinus

The most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome and as a fine specimen of medieval calligraphy, now kept at Florence in the Bibliotheca Laurentiana. The symbol for it is written am or A (Wordsworth). It is preserved in an immense tome, measuring in height and breadth 19 1/4 inches by 13 3/8 inches, and in thickness 7 inches -- so impressive, as Hort says, as to fill the beholder with a feeling akin to awe. Some consider it, with White, as perhaps "the finest book in the world"; still there are several manuscripts which are as beautifully written and have besides, like the Book of Kells or Book of Lindisfarne, those exquisite ornaments of which Amiatinus is devoid. It contains 1029 leaves of strong, smooth vellum, fresh-looking today, despite their great antiquity, arranged in quires of four sheets, or quaternions. It is written in uncial characters, large, clear, regular, and beautiful, two columns to a page, and 43 or 44 lines to a column. A little space is often left between words, but the writing is in general continuous. The text is divided into sections, which in the Gospels correspond closely to the Ammonian Sections. There are no marks of punctuation, but the skilled reader was guided into the sense by stichometric, or verse-like, arrangement into coda and commata, which correspond roughly to the principal and dependent clauses of a sentence. This manner of writing the scribe is believed to have modelled upon the great Bible of Cassiodorus (q.v.), but it goes back perhaps even to St. Jerome; it may be shown best by an example:

It will be noticed that the section "ET IN" and the coda begin at about the same perpendicular line, the commata begin further in under the third or second letter, and so likewise does the continuation of a colon or comma which runs beyond a single line (see facsimile page). This arrangement, besides aiding the intelligence of the text, gave a spacious, varied, and rather artistic appearance to the page. The initial letter of a section was often written in ink of a different colour, and so also was the first line of a book. Beyond that there was no attempt at decorating the text.

The codex (or pandect) is usually said to contain the whole Bible; but it should be noted that the Book of Baruch is missing, though the Epistle of Jeremias, usually incorporated with it, is here appended to the Book of Jeremias. Besides the text of the Scriptural books, it contains St. Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" and his prefaces to individual books; the capitula, or summaries of contents; and, in the first quaternion, certain materials which have been much discussed and have proved of the greatest service in tracing the history of the codex, among them dedicatory verses, a list of the books contained in the codex, a picture of the Tabernacle (formerly thought to be Solomon's Temple), a division of the Biblical books according to Jerome, another according to Hilary and Epiphanius, and a third according to Augustine. Part of Solomon's prayer (III K., viii, 22-30) in an Old Latin text is reproduced at the end of Ecclesiasticus. A Greek inscription at the beginning of Leviticus, recording that "the Lord Servandus prepared" this codex or part of it, has entered largely into the discussion of its origin.

The recovery of the history of Codex Amiatinus, which has important bearings upon the history of the Vulgate itself and of the text of the Bible, was due to the labours of many scholars and the insight of one man of genius, de Rossi. At the beginning of the pandect, as we have mentioned, there are certain dedicatory verses; they record the gift (of the codex) to the venerable convent of St. Saviour by a certain Peter who was abbot from the extreme territory of the Lombards. The Latin text is as follows:

St. Saviour's is the name of the monastery on Monte Amiata (whence Amiatinus) near Siena; here this codex was kept from the ninth century till the year 1786, when it was brought to Florence after the suppression of the monastery. Naturally, the codex was supposed to be a gift to this house, but nothing was known of the donor. Bandini, the librarian of the Laurentiana, into whose hands the codex came, noticed that the names of neither the donor nor the recipient belonged to the original dedication. They were written in a different hand over parts of the original inscription, as betrayed by evident signs of erasure. The letters italicized above were by the second hand, while the initial letter C of the first line and the E in the fifth were original. Bandini noticed, also, that cenobium replaced a shorter word and that the last five letters of salvatoris were written on parchment that had not been erased, and so that the ten letters of this word replaced five of the original word. The metre also was entirely at fault. The clue for reconstructing the original lines he found in the expression caput ecclesiæ, which he judged referred to St. Peter. And as in the Middle Ages a favourite title for the Apostolic See was culmen apostolicum, he reconstructed the line in this fashion:

CULMEN AD EXIMII MERITO VENERABILE PETRI

This conjecture produced a correct hexameter verse, retained the original initial C, supplied a word of proper length at the beginning and another at the end, and afforded a sense fitting in perfectly with the probabilities of the case. In the fifth line, instead of Petrus Langobardorum, Bandini suggested Servandus Latii, because of the inscription about Servandus mentioned above. This Servandus was believed to be a friend of St. Benedict, to whom he made a visit at Monte Cassino in 541; he was abbot of a monastery near the extremity of Latium.

These conjectures were accepted by the learned world; Tischendorf, for instance, writing seventy-five years later, said Bandini had so well proved his case that no doubt remained. Accordingly, it was settled that the Codex Amiatinus dated from the middle of the sixth century, was the oldest manuscript of the Vulgate, and was written in Southern Italy. A few protests were raised, however; that, for instance, of Paul de Lagarde. He had edited St. Jerome's translation of the Hebrew Psalter, using freely for that purpose a codex of the ninth century; Amiatinus he judged, with a not unnatural partiality, to be "in all probability" from the hand of the scribe of his ninth-century Psalter, written "at Reichenau on the Lake of Constance". But, to quote Corssen, it was G. B. de Rossi, "that great Roman scholar, whose never-failing perspicacity and learning discovered at once the birthplace of our famous manuscript" (Academy, 7 April, 1888).

De Rossi followed Bandini in his reconstruction of the first verse, but he thought it unlikely that an abbot, presenting a book to the pope at Rome, should speak of "the extreme limits of Latium", really but a short distance from Rome. Anzizni, the librarian of the Laurentiana, pointed out to him that the space erased to make room for Petrus Langobardorum was greater than called for by the conjecture of Bandini. De Rossi was at the time engaged on an inquiry into the ancient history of the Vatican library, and, recalling a passage of Bede, he divined that the lost name was Ceolfridus. The erasures, which were irregular, seeming to follow the letters very closely, corresponded perfectly to this conjecture. He proposed then the verse:

CEOLFRIDUS BRITONUM EXTREMIS DE FINIB. ABBAS

The phrase exactly suited an abbot from the end of the world, as England was then regarded and styled; and the story of Ceolfrid made de Rossi's conjectures acceptable at once, especially to English scholars. Ceolfrid was the disciple of Benedict Biscop (q.v.), who founded the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow in Northumberland towards the end of the seventh century. England, in those days, was the most devoted daughter of the Roman See, and Abbot Benedict was enthusiastic in his devotion. His monasteries were dependent directly on Rome. Five times during his life he journeyed to Rome, usually bring back with him a library of books presented by the pope. Ceolfrid, who had accompanied him on one of these visits, became his successor in 686 and inherited his taste for books; Bede mentions three pandects of St. Jerome's translation which he had made, one of which he determined in his old age, in 716, to bring to the church of St. Peter at Rome. He died on the way, but his gift was carried to the Holy Father, then Gregory II. This codex de Rossi identified with Amiatinus.

This conjecture was hailed by all as a genuine discovery of great importance. Berger, however, objected to Britonum, suggesting Anglorum. Hort soon placed the matter beyond the possibility of doubt. In an anonymous life of Ceolfrid, the chief source of Bede's information, which, though twice published, had been overlooked by all, Hort found the story of Ceolfrid journeying to Rome and carrying the pandect inscribed with the verses:

etc. Despite the variations, there could be no doubt of their identity with the dedicatory verses of Amiatinus; Corpus was of course the original, not Culmen, and Anglorum, not Britonum; the other differences were perhaps due to a lapse of memory, or this version may represent the original draft of the dedication. De Rossi's chief point was proved right. It established that Amiatinus originated in Northumberland about the beginning of the eighth century, having been made, as Bede states, at Ceolfrid's order. It does not follow, however, that the scribe was an Englishman; the writing and certain peculiarities of orthography have led some to believe him an Italian. We know that these two monasteries had brought over a Roman musician to train the monks in the Roman chant, and they may also, for a similar purpose, have procured from Italy a skilled calligrapher. The handwriting of Amiatinus bears a strong resemblance to some fragments of St. Luke in a Durham manuscript, to New Testament fragments bound up with the Utrecht Psalter, and to the Stonyhurst St. John; these facts, together with Bede's statement that Ceolfrid had three pandects written, indicate that "there was a large and flourishing school of calligraphy at Wearmouth or Jarrow in the seventh and eighth centuries, of which till lately we had no knowledge at all" (White). This conclusion is confirmed by peculiarities in the text and in certain of the summaries.

The contents of the first quaternion of Amiatinus coincide so remarkably with descriptions of the celebrated Codex Grandior of Cassiodorus that it has been supposed that the leaves were transferred from it bodily; the conjecture has been rendered more credible by the fact that this codex was actually seen in England by Bede, perhaps before Amiatinus was carried to Rome. Moreover, the contents of our codex do not correspond exactly to the list prefixed which purports to give the contents. These reasons, however, would only prove that the Codex Grandior served as the model, which seems indubitable; while, on the other hand, weighty reasons have been urged against the other attractive hypothesis (see White and de Rossi).

Despite the lowering of its date by a century and a half, Amiatinus holds the first place for purity of text among the manuscripts of the Vulgate. Its excellence is best explained on the ground that its prototype was an ancient Italian manuscript, perhaps one of those brought from Rome by Benedict Biscop, perhaps one brought by Adrian, abbot of a monastery near Naples, when in 668 he accompanied Benedict and Theodore to England. It is remarkable that Amiatinus and the other Northumbrian codices are nearest in text to Italian manuscripts, especially to Southern Italian, and to manuscripts betraying Italian descent. The group to which it belongs bears the closest relationship to the best-esteemed Greek manuscripts extant, aleph, B. (Cf. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; CRITICISM, BIBLICAL, sub-title Textual.) In the Old Testament, the text is not of equal purity throughout; Berger, e.g., notes the inferiority of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and Tischendorf of Machabees. The Psalter does not present the Vulgate text, but St. Jerome's translation from the Hebrew (cf. PSALTER; VULGATE). The excellence of the Amiatine text is not a new discovery: it was well known to the Sixtine revisers of the Vulgate, who used it constantly and preferred it, as a rule, to any other. To this is largely due the comparative purity of the official Vulgate text and its freedom from so many of the corruptions found in the received Greek text, which rests, as is well known, on some of the latest and most imperfect Greek manuscripts.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Bezae

(CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS), one of the five most important Greek New Testament manuscripts, and the most interesting of all on account of its peculiar readings; scholars designate it by the letter D (see BIBLICAL CRITICISM, sub-title Textual). It receives its name from Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin, and from the University of Cambridge, which obtained it as a gift from Beza in 1581 and still possesses it. The text is bilingual, Greek and Latin. The manuscript, written in uncial characters, forms a quarto volume, of excellent vellum, 10 x 8 inches, with one column to a page, the Greek being on the left page (considered the place of honour), the parallel Latin facing it on the right page. It has been reproduced in an excellent photographic facsimile, published (1899) by the University of Cambridge.

The codex contains only the Four Gospels, in the order once common in the West, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, then a few verses (11-15), in Latin only, of the Third Epistle of St. John, and the Acts. There are missing, however, from the manuscript of the original scribe, in the Greek, Matt., i, 1-20; [iii, 7-16]; vi, 20-ix, 2; xxvii, 2-12; John i, 16-iii, 26; [xviii, 14-xx, 13]; [Mk. xvi, 15-20]; Acts, viii, 29-x, 14; xxi, 2-10, 16-18; xxii, 10-20; xxii, 29-xxviii, 31; in the Latin, Matt., i, 1-11; [ii, 21-iii, 7]; vi,8-viii, 27; xxvi, 65-xxvii, 1; John, i, 1-iii, 16; [xviii, 2-xx, 1]; [Mk., xvi, 6-20]; Acts viii, 20-x, 4; xx, 31-xxi, 2, 7-10; xxii, 2-10; xxiii, 20- xxviii, 31. The passages in brackets have been supplied by a tenth-century hand. It will be noticed that St. Luke's Gospel alone, of the books contained, is preserved complete. The condition of the book shows a gap between the Gospels and Acts; and the fragment of III John indicates that, as in other ancient manuscript, the Catholic Epistles were placed there. The fact that the Epistle of Jude does not immediately precede Acts is regarded as pointing to its omission from the codex; it may, however, have been placed elsewhere. We cannot tell whether the manuscript contained more of the New Testament, and there is no indication that it was, like the other great uncial manucripts, ever joined to the text of the Old Testament. Besides the hand of the original scribe, there are corrections in several different hands, some probably contemporary with the original, later liturgical annotations and the sortes sanctorum, or formulae for telling fortunes; all these are important for tracing the history of the manuscript

Beza wrote in the letter accompanying his gift that the manuscript was obtained from the monastery of St. Irenaeus in Lyons, during the war in 1562. Lyons was sacked by the Huguenots in that year and this manuscript was probably part of the loot. The reformer said it had lain in the monastery for long ages, neglected and covered with dust; but his statement is rejected by most modern scholars. It is claimed, in fact, that this codex is the one which was used at the Council of Trent in 1546 by William Dupré (English writers persist in calling this Frenchman a Prato), Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm a Latin reading of John, xxi, si eum volo manere, which is found only in the Greek of this codex. Moreover, it is usually identified with Codex beta, whose peculiar readings were collated in 1546 for Stephens' edition of the Greek Testament by friends of his in Italy. Beza himself, after having first denominated his codex Lugdunensis, later called it Claromontanus, as if it came not from Lyons, but from Clermont (near Beauvais, not Clermont of Auvergne). All this, throwing Beza's original statement into doubt, indicates that the manuscript was in Italy in the middle of the sixteenth century, and has some bearing upon the locality of the production.

It has commonly been held that the manuscript originated in Southern France around the beginning of the sixth century. No one places it at a later dare, chiefly on the evidence of the handwriting. France was chosen, partly because the manuscript was found there, partly because churches in Lyons and the South were of Greek foundation and for a long time continued the use of Greek in the Liturgy, while Latin was the vernacular- for some such community, at any rate, this bilingual codex was produced- and partly because the text of D bears a remarkable resemblance to the text quoted by St. Irenaeus, even, says Nestle, in the matter of clerical mistakes, so that it is possibly derived from his very copy. During the past five years, however, the opinion of the best English textual critics has been veering to Southern Italy as the original home of D. It is pointed out that the manuscript was used by a church practising the Greek Rite, as the liturgical annotations concern the Greek text alone; that these annotations date from the ninth to the eleventh century, exactly the period of the Greek Rite in Southern Italy, while it had died out elsewhere in Latin Christendom, and show that the Byzantine Mass-lections were in use, which cannot have been the case in Southern France. The corrections, too, which concern the Greek text but rarely the Latin, the spelling, and the calendar all point to Southern Italy. These arguments, however, touch only the home of the manuscript, not its birthplace, and manuscripts have travelled from one end of Europe to the other. Ravenna and Sardinia, where Greek and Latin influences also met, have likewise been suggested. It can only be said that the certainty with which till recently it was ascribed to Southern France has been shaken, and the probabilities now favour Southern Italy.

Following Scrivener, scholars universally dated it from the beginning of the sixth century, but there is a tendency now to place it a hundred years earlier.. Scrivener himself admitted that the handwriting was not inconsistent with this early date, and only assigned it a later date by reason of the Latinity of the annotations. But the corrupt Latin is not itself incompatible with an earlier date, while the freedom with which the Latin N.T. text is handled indicates a time when the Old Latin version was still current. It probably belongs to the fifth century. Nothing necessitates a later date.

The type of text found in D is very ancient, yet it has survived in this one Greek manuscript alone, though it is found also in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and the Old Armenian versions. It is the so-called Western Text, or one type of the Western Text. All the Fathers before the end of the third century used a similar text and it can be traced back to sub-Apostolic times. Its value is discussed elsewhere. D departs more widely than any other Greek codex from the ordinary text, compared with which as a standard, it is characterized by numerous additions, paraphrastic renderings, inversions, and some omissions. (For collation of text, see Scrivener, Bezae Codex, pp. xlix-lxiii; Nestle, Novi Test. Graeci Supplementum, Gebhardt and Tischendorf ed., Leipzig, 1896.) One interpolation is worth noting here. After Luke, vi, 5, we read :B3On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him:8CO man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law'." The most important omission, probably, is the second mention of the cup in Luke's account of the Last Supper.

The Latin text is not the Vulgate, nor yet the Old Latin, which it resembles more closely. It seems to be an independent translation of the Greek that faces it, though the fact that it contains two thousand variations from its accompanying Greek text have led some to doubt this. Of this number, however, only seven hundred and sixteen are said to be real variant readings, and some of these are derived from the Vulgate. If the translation be independent, both the Vulgate and Old Latin have influenced it greatly; as time went on, the influence of the Vulgate grew and probably extended even to modifications of the Greek text. Chase, however, traces many of the variants to an original Syriac influence. The text, which was in so great honour in the Early Church, possesses a fascination for certain scholars, who occasionally prefer its readings; but none professes to have really solved the mystery of its origin.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

(Symbol C).

The last in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible, received its name from the treatises of St. Ephraem the Syrian (translated into Greek) which were written over the original text. This took place in the twelfth century, the ink of the Scriptural text having become partially effaced through fading or rubbing. Several Biblical codices are palimpsests (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE), of which Codex Ephraemi is the most important. After the fall of Constantinople it was brought to Florence; thence it was carried to Paris by Catherine de' Medici, and has passed into the possession of the National Library.

Through Pierre Alix, Montfaucon, and Boivin, attention was called to the underlying text, and some of its readings given to the world. The first complete collation of the New Testament was made by Wetstein (1716). Tischendorf published the New Testament in 1843 and the Old Testament in 1845. The torn condition of many leaves, the faded state of the ink, and the covering of the original writing by the later made the decipherment an extremely difficult task; some portions are hopelessly illegible. Tischendorf, then a young man, won his reputation through this achievement. His results, however, have not been checked by other scholars, and so cannot yet be accepted without caution.

The codex, of good vellum, measures 12 1/4 inches by 9 inches; there is but one column to a page, C being the earliest example of this kind. The writing is a little larger than that of Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus; the first hand inserted no breathings or accents, and only the occasional apostrophe. The period is marked by a single point. Large capitals are frequent, as in the Codex Alexandrinus. The margin of the Gospels contains the Ammonian Sections, but not the numbers of the Eusebian Canons, which were probably written in vermilion and have faded away. The Euthalian chapters are missing; the subscriptions are brief. From these indications and the character of the writing, Codex C is placed in the first half of the fifth century, along with A. Tischendorf distinguishes two scribes (contemporaries), one for Old Testament, the other for New Testament, and two correctors, one (C2) of the sixth, the other (C3) of the ninth century; he conjectured that Egypt was the place of origin. With the exception of Tischendorf no modern has really studied the manuscript.

Originally the whole Bible seems to have been contained in it. At present, of the Old Testament only some of the Hagiographa survive, in an imperfect state, namely nearly all of Ecclesiastes, about half of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, with fragments of Proverbs and Canticles -in all 64 leaves. About two-thirds of the New Testament (145 leaves) remain, including portions of all the books except II Thess. and II John; no book is complete. The text of C is said to be very good in Wisdom, very bad in Ecclesiasticus, two books for which its testimony is important. The New Testament text is very mixed; the scribe seems to have had before him manuscripts of different types and to have followed now one now another. "Sometimes", says Kenyon, "it agrees with the neutral group of manuscripts, sometimes with the Western, not unfrequently with the Alexandrian and perhaps oftenest with the Syrian". From certain displacements in the apocalypse, Hort infers that the book was copied from a codex of small leaves. Such an exemplar would not be used in church services and would have no guarantee of a good text. Possibly the rest of the manuscript was copied from similar codices.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Sinaiticus

(The symbol is the Hebrew character Aleph, though Swete and a few other scholars use the letter S.)

A Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered in a rubbish basket forty-three leaves of the Septuagint, containing portions of I Par. (Chron.), Jer., Neh., and Esther; he was permitted to take them. He also saw the books of Isaias and I and IV Machabees, belonging to the same codex as the fragments, but could not obtain possession of them; warning the monks of their value, he left for Europe and two years later published the leaves he had brought with him under the name of Codex Friderico-Augustanus, after his patron. They are preserved at Leipzig. On a second visit, in 1853, he found only two short fragments of Genesis (which he printed on his return) and could learn nothing of the rest of the codex. In 1859 he made a third visit, this time under the patronage of the Czar, Alexander II. This visit seemed likewise fruitless when, on the eve of his departure, in a chance conversation with the steward, he learned of the existence of a manuscript there; when it was shown to him, he saw the very manuscript he had sought containing, beyond all his dreams, a great part of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament, besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas, of which two works no copies in the original Greek were known to exist. Thinking it "a crime to sleep", Tischendorf spent the night copying Barnabas; he had to leave in the morning, after failing to persuade the monks to let him have the manuscript. At Cairo he stopped at a monastery belonging to the same monks (they were of the Orthodox Greek Church) and succeeded i having the manuscript sent to him there for transcription; and finally, in obtaining it from the monks as a present to the Czar, Tischendorf's patron and the protector of their Church. Years later, in 1869, the Czar rewarded the two monasteries with gifts of money (7000 and 2000 roubles each) and decorations. The manuscript is treasured in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. Tischendorf published an account of it in 1860; and, under the auspices of the czar, printed it in facsimile in 1862. Twenty-one lithographic plates made from photographs were included in this edition, which was issued in four volumes. The following year he published a critical edition of the New Testament. Finally, in 1867, he published additional fragments of Genesis and Numbers, which had been used to bind other volumes at St. Catherine's and had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius. On four different occasions, then, portions of the original manuscript have been discovered; they have never been published together in a single edition.

The Codex Sinaiticus, which originally must have contained the whole Old Testament, has suffered severely from mutilation, especially in the historical books from Genesis to Esdras (inclusive); the rest of the Old Testament fared much better. The fragments and books extant are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v, vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias, Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I Machabees, IV Machabees (apocryphal, while the canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III Machabees were never contained in this codex). A curious occurrence is that Esdras, ix, 9 follows I Par., xix, 17 without any break; the note of a corrector shows that seven leaves of I Par. were copied into the Book of Esdras, probably by a mistake in the binding of the manuscript from which Codex Sinaiticus was copied. Our Esdras is called in this codex, as in many others, Esdras B. This may indicate that it followed Esdras A, as the book called by Jerome III Esdras (see ESDRAS) is named in ancient codices; the proof is by no means sure, however, as IV Machabees is here designated Machabees D, as was usual, although the second and third books of Machabees were absent from the manuscript. The New Testament is complete, likewise the Epistle of Barnabas; six leaves following Barnabas are lost, which probably also contained uncanonical literature: the "Shepherd" of Hermas is incomplete, and we cannot tell whether other works followed. In all, there are 346 1/2 leaves. The order of the New Testament is to be noted, St. Paul's Epistles preceding Acts; Hebrews following II Thess. The manuscript is on good parchment; the pages measure about 15 inches by 13 1/2 inches; there are four columns to a page, except in the poetical books, which are written stichometrically in two columns of greater width; there are 48 lines to a column, but 47 in the Catholic Epistles. The four narrow columns give the page the appearance of an ancient roll; it is not impossible, as Kenyon says, that it was in fact copied from a papyrus roll. It is written in uncial characters, well formed, without accents or breathings, and with no punctuation except (at times) the apostrophe and the single point for a period. Tischendorf judged that there were four hands engaged in the writing of the manuscript; in this he has been generally followed. He has been less happy in obtaining acceptance of his conjecture that one of these scribes also wrote the New Testament of the Vatican Codex. He recognized seven correctors of the text, one of them contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript. The Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons are indicated in the margin, probably by a contemporary hand; they seem to have been unknown to the scribe, however, who followed another division. The clerical errors are relatively not numerous, in Gregory's judgment.

In age this manuscript ranks alongside the Codex Vaticanus. Its antiquity is shown by the writing, by the four columns to a page (an indication, probably, of the transition from the roll to the codex form of manuscript.), by the absence of the large initial letters and of ornaments, by the rarity of punctuation, by the short titles of the books, the presence of divisions of the text antedating Eusebius, the addition of Barnabas and Hermas, etc. Such indications have induced experts to place it in the fourth century, along with Codex Vaticanus and some time before Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus; this conclusion is not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early fifth-century date is conceded. Its origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt, and Caesarea, but cannot be determined (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London, 1901, p. 56 sqq.). It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras: "This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [d. 309]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: `Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it'." Pamphilus was, with Eusebius, the founder of the library at Caesarea. Some are even inclined to regard Codex Sinaiticus as one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople. Nothing is known of its later history till its discovery by Tischendorf. The text of Codex Sinaiticus bears a very close resemblance to that of Codex Vaticanus, though it cannot be descended from the same immediate ancestor. In general, Codex Vaticanus is placed first in point of purity by contemporary scholars and Codex Sinaiticus next. This is especially true, for the New Testament, of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in the Old Testament where the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus often agree.

JOHN F. FENLON

Codex Vaticanus

(CODEX B), a Greek manuscript, the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture. It is so called because it belongs to the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus, 1209).

This codex is a quarto volume written in uncial letters of the fourth century, on folios of fine parchment bound in quinterns. Each page is divided into three columns of forty lines each, with from sixteen to eighteen letters to a line, except in the poetical books, where, owing to the stichometric division of the lines, there are but two columns to a page. There are no capital letters, but at times the first letter of a section extends over the margin. Several hands worked at the manuscript; the first writer inserted neither pauses nor accents, and made use but rarely of a simple punctuation. Unfortunately, the codex is mutilated; at a later date the missing folios were replaced by others. Thus, the first twenty original folios are missing; a part of folio 178, and ten folios after fol. 348; also the final quinterns, whose number it is impossible to establish. There are extant in all 759 original folios.

The Old Testament (Septuagint Version, except Daniel, which is taken from the version of Theodotion) takes up 617 folios. On account of the aforementioned lacunae, the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5-7,10-13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6. The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel; the Vatican Codex does not contain the Prayer of Manasses or the Books of Machabees.The New Testament begins at fol. 618. Owing to the loss of the final quinterns, a portion of the Pauline Epistles is missing: Heb., ix,14-xiii,25, the Pastoral Letters, Epistle to Philemon; also the Apocalypse. It is possible that there may also be some extra-canonical writings missing, like the Epistle of Clement. The order of the New Testament books is as follows: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Catholic Epistles, St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (I-II), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (I-II), Hebrews.

In the Vatican Codex we find neither the Ammonian Sections nor the Eusebian Canons (q.v.). It is, however, divided into sections, after a manner that is common to it with the Codex Zacynthius (Cod. "Zeta"), an eighth-century Scriptural manuscript of St. Luke. The Acts of the Apostles exhibits a special division into thirty-six chapters. The Catholic Epistles bear traces of a double division, in the first and earlier of which some believe that the Second Epistle of Peter was wanting. The division of the Pauline Epistles is quite peculiar: they are treated as one book, and numbered continuously. It is clear from this enumeration that in the copy of the Scriptures reproduced by the Vatican Codex the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Ephesians.

The Vatican Codex, in spite of the views of Tischendorf, who held for the priority of the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by him, is rightly considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible. Like the Codex Sinaiticus it represents what Westcott and Hort call a "neutral text", i.e. a text that antedates the modifications found in all later manuscripts, not only the modifications found in the less ancient Antiochene recensions, but also those met with in the Eastern and Alexandrine recensions. It may be said that the Vatican Codex, written in the first half of the fourth century, represents the text of one of those recensions of the Bible which were current in the third century, and that it belongs to the family of manuscripts made use of by Origen in the composition of his Hexapla.

The original home of the Vatican Codex is uncertain. Hort thinks it was written at Rome; Rendel Harris, Armitage Robinson, and others attribute it to Asia Minor. A more common opinion maintains that it was written in Egypt. Armitage Robinson believes that both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were originally together in some ancient library. His opinion is based on the fact that in the margins of both manuscripts is found the same special system of chapters for the Acts of the Apostles, taken from the division of Euthalius, and found in two other important codices (Amiatinus and Fuldensis) of the Latin Vulgate. Tischendorf believed that three hands had worked at the transcription of the Vatican Codex. He identified (?) the first hand (B1), or transcriber, of the Old Testament with the transcriber of a part of the Old Testament and some folios of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus. This primitive text was revised, shortly after its original transcription, with the aid of a new manuscript, by a corrector (B2 -- For the Old Testament B2 is quoted by Swete as Ba). Six centuries after (according to some), a third hand (B3,Bb) retraced the faded letters, leaving but very little of the original untouched. According to Fabiani, however, this retracing was done early in the fifteenth century by the monk Clemens (qui saeculo XV ineunte floruisse videtur). In modern times (fifteenth-sixteenth century) the missing folios were added to the codex, in order, as Tregelles conjectures, to prepare it for use in the Vatican Library. Old catalogues show that it was there in the fifteenth century. The addition to the New Testament was listed by Scrivener as Cod. 263 (in Gregory, 293) for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Cod. 91 for the Apocalypse. Napoleon I had the codex brought to Paris (where Hug was enabled to study it), but it was afterwards returned to the Holy See, with some other remnants of Roman booty, and replaced in the Vatican Library. There are various collations, editions, and studies of the Vatican Codex. The collations are:

• that of Bartolocci (Giulio di S. Anastasia), formerly librarian of the Vatican; it was done in 1669 and is preserved in manuscript -- Gr. Suppl. 53 of the Bibliothèque Natonale -- at Paris (quoted under the sigla: Blc);
• that of Birch (Bch) published at Copenhagen in 1798 for the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, in 1800 for the Apocalypse, in 1801 for the Gospels;
• that executed for Bentley (Btly) by the Abbate Mico about 1720 on the margin of a copy of the Greek New Testament which was published at Strasburg, 1524, by Cephalaeus; this copy is among Bentley's books in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge -- the collation itself was published in Ford's appendix to Woide's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1799;
• a list of the alterations executed by the original copyist or by his correctors, edited at the request of Bentley by the Abbate Rulotta with the aid of the Abbate de Stosch (Rlt); this list was supposed to have perished, but it is extant among the Bentley papers in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, under the sigla: B. 17.20;
• in 1860 Alford, and in 1862 Cure, examined a select number of the readings of the Vatican Codex, and published the results of their labours in the first volume of Alford's Greek Testament.

Many other scholars have made special collations for their own purposes e.g. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, etc. Among the works written on the Vatican Codex we may indicate: Bourgon, Letters from Rome" (London, 1861). In the second volume of the Catalogue of Vatican Greek manuscripts, executed according to the modern scientific method for the cataloguing of the Vatican Library, there is a description of the Codex Vaticanus.

As to the editions of this codex, the Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587) was based on the Vaticanus. Similarly, the Cambridge edition of Swete follows it regularly and makes use of the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus only for the portions that are lacking in the Vaticanus. The first Roman edition appeared in 1858, under the names of Mai and Vercellone, and, under the same names, a second Roman edition in 1859. Both editions were severely criticized by Tischendorf in the edition he brought out at Leipzig in 1867, "Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, post A. Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice editum", with an appendix (1869). The third Roman edition (Verc.) appeared under the names of Vercellone (died 1869) and Cozza-Luzi (died 1905) in 1868-81; it was accompanied by a photographic reproduction of the text: "Bibliorum SS. Graecorum Cod. Vat. 1209, Cod. B, denou phototypice expressus, jussu et cura praesidum Bibliothecae Vaticanae" (Milan, 1904-6). This edition contains a masterly anonymous introduction (by Giovanni Mercati), in which the writer corrects many inexact statements made by previous writers. Until recently the privilege of consulting this ancient manuscript quite freely and fully was not granted to all who sought it. The material condition of the Vatican Codex is better, generally speaking, than that of its contemporaries; it is foreseen, however, that within a century it will have fallen to pieces unless an efficacious remedy, which is being earnestly sought for, shall be discovered.

U. BENIGNI

Thomas Codrington

(Died 1691?), Catholic divine, chiefly known for his attempt to introduce into England the "Institute of Secular Priests Living in Community", founded in Bavaria by Bartholomaus Holzhauser. He was educated and ordained priest at Douai, where he taught humanities for a time. Later on he lived with Cardinal Howard at Rome, acting as his chaplain and secretary. He returned to England in July, 1684, and on the accession of James II in the following year, he was appointed one of the royal chaplains and preachers in ordinary. While he was in Rome he had joined the institute above mentioned, in which Cardinal Howard took a great personal interest, and his return to England seemed to the superior, Father Hofer, a favourable opportunity for extending the institute. Accordingly Mr. Codrington and his companion, Mr. John Morgan, were appointed procurators to introduce the institute into England. The object of the society, the constitutions of which had been approved by Innocent XI in 1680, was to encourage community-life among the secular clergy. This was to be attained by priests residing together, and doing their work from a common centre, all being subject to the bishop. In this work he received much assistance from Cardinal Howard, who addressed letters both to the secular clergy and to the dean of the chapter, exhorting all English priests to join the institute. Even before leaving Rome he had been active in propagating the institute, and had, with his colleagues, endeavoured not only to introduce it into all the English colleges abroad, but even to make it obligatory on the superiors by a decree. Some progress was in fact made, but before much could be effected the Revolution took place, and in 1688 James II fled from England. Mr. Codrington followed his patron abroad to Saint-Germain, where he continued to act as chaplain until his death, which took place about 1691. For some years strenuous efforts were made to spread the institute in England, and in 1697 special constitutions, designed to meet the peculiar circumstances of English priests, were published with a preface, which shows that several of the leading missionaries had joined it. The chapter, however, were unrelenting, on the ground that it was unsuitable in England and would lead to dissentions among the clergy, and ultimately Bishop Giffard suppressed it. Mr. Codrington published a sermon preached before the king and queen, 28 November, 1686, and another preached before the queen-dowager, 6 February, 1687. The former of these was republished in the 1741 reprint entitled "Catholic Sermons".

EDWIN BURTON

Co-education

The term is now generally reserved to the practice of educating the sexes together; but even in this sense it has a variety of meanings.

• Mere juxtaposition; this implies the use of the same buildings and equipment under the same teaching staff for the education of both sexes, but does not oblige the sexes to follow the same methods or to live under the same regimen.
• Co-ordinate education; the students are taught by the same methods and the same teachers and are governed by the same general administration; but each sex has its own classes and, in the case of a university, its separate college.
• Identical education; both sexes are taught "the same things, at the same time, in the same place, by the same faculty, with the same methods and under the same regimen. This admits age and proficiency, but not sex, as a factor in classification" (Clarke, op. cit. below, p. 121). It is in this third and narrowest sense that co-education has been the subject of widespread discussion for some time past. In the United States especially the practice has grown rapidly during the last fifty years, while in European countries it has developed more slowly.

EXTENT

Elementary Schools

At present co-education is practically universal in the elementary grades of the public schools of the United States. It also prevails to a large extent in the elementary grades of private and denominational schools, including those which are under Catholic direction, notably the parochial schools.

Secondary Schools

According to the Commissioner's Report for 1905-6, there were in the United States 40 public high schools for boys only, with 22,044 students, and 29 schools for girls only, with 23,203 students; while the co-educational high schools numbered 7,962 having on their rolls 283,264 boys and 394,181 girls; the difference indicated by these last figures is noteworthy. During the same year there were under private direction 304 high schools for boys only, with 22,619 students; 500 high schools for girls only, with 27,081 students; while the private co-educational schools numbered 725 with an attendance of 26,487 boys and 25,568 gifts. From these statistics it appears that even in private high schools the number of boys is larger where co-education prevails than it is in schools exclusively for boys; and that the number of girls in co-educational schools is not very far below the number in schools exclusively for girls

Higher and Technical Educational Institutions

Of 622 universities, colleges, and technological schools reporting to the United States Bureau of Education for the year ended June, 1906, there were for men only, 158; for women only, 129; for both men and women, 335. Comparison with earlier statistics shows a decided advance in co-education. In 1889-90 the women in co-educational colleges numbered 8075, in schools of technology, 707, and in colleges for women only, 1979; the men in all colleges numbered 44,926. In 1905-6 there were 31,443 women in co-educational colleges and 6653 in colleges for women only; the number of men students was 97,738.

The tendency in Europe, generally speaking, is to admit women to university courses of study. but under restrictions which vary considerably from one country to another. In Germany, women, for the most part, attend the university as "hearers", not as matriculated students. The custom in England is that women should reside in colleges of their own while receiving the benefit of university education. There is also considerable variety in the regulations concerning the granting of degrees to women. Replies to an inquiry issued by the English Department of Education in 1897, with later revision (United States Commissioner's Report for 1904, chap. xx), showed that of 112 universities on the Continent, in Great Britain, and in the British colonies, 86 made no distinction between men and women students, 6 admitted women by courtesy to lectures and examinations, 20 permitted them to attend some lectures only; of these 20 universities, 14 were German and 6 Austrian. The proportion of women students to the total enrollment in the universities of Central Europe is shown in the following table:--

In England, provision for the higher education of women began with the founding of Queen's College, London (1848) and Bedford College (1849). In 1878 the University of London admitted women to examinations and degrees. The honour degree examinations of Cambridge were opened to women (students of Girton and Newnham colleges) in 1881; some of the Oxford examinations were opened to women (students of Somerville College and Lady Margaret Hall) in 1884; the Scottish universities admitted women in 1892; the University of Durham in 1895; the University of Wales from its foundation in 1893. In Ireland, both the Royal University and Trinity College, Dublin, receive women students. It should, however, be noted that the number of women following university courses in England is still comparatively small. In 1905-6 the colleges mentioned above in connexion with Oxford had in residence 136 students, and those at Cambridge, 316. On the other hand, the movement is stronger in some of the recently founded universities. Thus the institutions for women affiliated with the London University (Bedford, Halloway, Westfield, and Royal Free hospital) in 1905-6 numbered 628 students. It may therefore be said that co-education in Europe, though it has made a beginning, is by no means so prominent a feature of the schools as it is in the United States. Its growth and effects are for this reason best studied in American institutions; and in these the historical facts are the more important inasmuch as they are said to furnish ample justification of the policy.

CAUSES

The explanation of these facts is to be sought in a variety of conditions, some of which are naturally connected with the general development of the country while others may be called artificial, in the sense that they are the application of theories or policies rather than direct responses to needs, or final solutions of problems. Thus it is significant that co-education has found its stronghold in the Northern, Central, and Western States of the Union which profited most by the Congressional land grants of 1787 and 1862 and by similar grants on the part of the several States. It was easy to argue, on the basis of democratic principles, that institutions supported by public funds should offer the same advantages to all citizens. From the founding of Oberlin College, Ohio (1833), which was the first institution of its class to introduce co-education (1837). the policy spread at such a rate that by 1880 more than half the colleges, and by 1900 nearly three-fourths, had adopted it. In the more conservative East segregation was the general practice until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. But the precedent established by Boston University (1869) and by Cornell (1872) was soon followed by many other Eastern institutions.

A still more powerful factor has been the public high school, which since 1850 has held an important place in the educational system. Some schools of this class, notably those in the West were co-educational from the start; others were opened at first for boys only, but eventually they admitted girls on the same terms; this was the case in the larger cities of the East. In 1891, only 15 out of 628 leading cities of the country had separate high schools, in 1901 the number had fallen to 12. The growth of these schools coincided with the movement in favour of higher education for women. The leaders of this movement insisted on the right of women to have equal advantages with men in the line of education; they quite overlooked or disregarded the fact that equality in this case does not mean identity. But any defect in their reasoning on the subject was more than compensated for by their enthusiasm and perseverance. Their efforts, however, were in accordance with the demands made by industrial changes. The introduction of labour-saving machinery which gradually brought about the factory organization of industry, took from woman, one by one, her traditional employments in the home and compelled her to seek new occupations in fields hitherto occupied exclusive by man: hence the very natural demand for equal educational opportunities, not merely to secure the more complete development of woman's faculties, but also as a necessary means to equip her for her new position. The demand of course grew more imperative as the professions were opened to women. Once it was admitted that a woman might, for instance, take up the practice of medicine, it was quite obvious as a matter of public policy that she should receive the training given to every physician. How fully her claims have been recognized will appear from statistics given above of the growth of universities, colleges, and schools of technology since 1889.

The rapid spread of co-education aroused intense interest not only among educators but also in the mind of the public at large. The subject was discussed from every point of view, moral, medical, and economic, no less than educational. Special inquiries were sent out by school committees, State boards, and the United States Bureau of Education, with a view to obtaining statistics and expressions of opinion. Replies to these inquiries served as a basis for numerous reports, such as that of the Boston School Committee (Document 19, 1890) and that. of the Commissioner of Education based on the inquiry of 1891. (See Commissioner's Report for 1900-1901, chap. xxviii.) The outcome of the discussion may be summarized as follows:

• the tendency towards co-education as a universal policy was freely admitted by all parties;
• considerable divergence of opinion was manifested as to the wisdom of co-education, particularly in secondary schools;
• in many cases the issue was obscured by treating co-education as though it were synonymous with the higher education of women.

In order to set this phase of the question in a somewhat clearer light, it should be noted first of all that the reasons advanced in favour of the higher education of women, valid as they certainly are, do not of themselves require that this education shall be identical with that given to men. Passing over for the present the question whether both sexes should study the same subjects by identical methods for the same length of time, or even supposing that this question should be answered in the affirmative, one is not thereby compelled to admit that co-education is the only acceptable policy. The efficient work of those colleges which are exclusively for women tells strongly in favour of separate education. On the other hand, it should be remarked that the unification of the schools into a system does not necessarily imply co-education all the way through. While endorsing the practice in the elementary school for certain reasons and in the university for other reasons, one may consistently refuse to approve its introduction in the secondary school. A third consideration turns on the moral factor. This is, and always has been, of paramount importance in Catholic education. Whatever advantages of an intellectual sort may be claimed for the co-educational school, these must, from the Catholic point of view, be waived if they cannot be obtained without danger to morality. This view of course is shared by many non-Catholic parents and teachers, some of whom have made it the basis of their criticism of co-education. Doubtless, too, it would have counted for more in the discussion if the whole problem of moral education had received the attention bestowed in late years on everything pertaining to purely intellectual culture. Where that problem is overlooked or lightly dismissed, some of the most serious objections to co-education naturally lose their force, while too much weight is attached to some of the reasons on the opposite side.

PRACTICE AND ATTITUDE OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

As noted above co-education prevails in most of the Catholic elementary schools. That women should also share in the advantages of higher education is quite in keeping with Catholic policy. An instance of this is the authorization granted by Rome for women to follow, under requisite conditions, courses at the English universities (Decision of Propaganda, 13 July, 1907). Another is furnished by such institutions as the Anna-Stift, a university school for Catholic teaching sisters founded at the University of Münster in 1899 to meet the wishes of the German bishops. Instruction is given by university professors not in the halls of the university but in the institute itself, an arrangement that is equivalent to what has been mentioned above as co-ordinate education. (See Engelkemper in Cath. Univ. Bulletin, May, 1908.) But in secondary schools, the Catholic policy is decidedly Opposed to co-education. The high schools, academies, and colleges for boys are altogether separate from those for girls. Boys are taught by male teachers, girls by women, usually religious. Nothing in fact so strongly emphasizes the Catholic attitude in this matter as the work of various orders of men established to teach boys, and of no less various orders of women to teach girls. This is the century-old practice of the Church, and it is observed in all countries. Catholics, moreover, have followed with interest the discussions concerning co-education; and though in many other respects they have adopted in their own work the methods approved by experience in non-Catholic schools, they have not been convinced by the arguments advanced in favour of the co-educational plan.

From the viewpoint of economy co-education might seem the wiser plan; but as a matter of fact, by increasing the number of pupils in each class it throws a heavier burden on the teacher and it makes difficult if not impossible that individual instruction, the need of which is now so generally recognized. A saving that impairs the efficiency of the school is hardly desirable. The advantage also that is claimed on the score of improved discipline, is more apparent than real. While the boys probably part with some of their roughness it is by no means certain that the delicacy of feeling and the refinement of manner that are expected in girls, gain much by the association. Moreover, if there is a demand for better discipline, the right way to meet it is to train teachers more thoroughly in the art of school management. A skilful teacher will easily control a class either of boys or of girls by arousing and maintaining their interest in what is really the work of the school. On the other hand, it can do no harm to young people, especially boys, to cultivate betimes a spirit of obedience to law for its own sake, and not merely teach them to behave themselves out of deference for the opposite sex. There is no doubt a decided benefit to be gotten from social intercourse, provided this is accompanied by the proper conditions. The place for it is in the home, under the supervision of parents, who will see to it that their children have the right kind of associates, and will not leave them to the chance companionships which the mixed school affords. It has often been held that the co-educational system extends to the school the "good effects that flow from the mutual influence of mingling the sexes in the family circle"; but this contention evidently overlooks the profound difference between the home situation which associates children by natural ties of kindred, and the situation in school where these ties do not exist. And it further forgets, apparently, that the home influence itself has latterly been weakened in many ways and by various causes; how far co-education has contributed to this result is of course another question. At any rate, it avails nothing to argue that because boys and girls live together in the same family, it is more natural that they should be educated in the same classes. When appeal is taken to the "natural" order of things, the decision is plainly in favour of separate schools.

On physiological grounds, identical education presents serious difficulties. As no arrangement has been devised, and as none can be devised, to make the conditions of study exactly the same for both sexes, co-education really means that girls are subjected to a regimen intended and conducted for boys. To the physical strain which is thus imposed on them, girls as a rule are not equal; in particular they are apt to suffer from that very rivalry which is often cited as a desirable feature of the mixed school. If education is to take as its first principle conformity to nature, it must certainly make allowance for differences of organism and function. This need becomes the more imperative in proportion as the dependence of mind upon organic processes is more fully realized and turned to practical account in educational work. It then appears beyond question that from a psychological standpoint woman should have a different training from that which men receive. There is no question here as to the superiority or inferiority of either sex, nor will it profit to say that "soul has no gender". The fact is that each sex has its own mental constitution and its special capacities. To develop these is the work of education; but this does not mean that unlike natures shall be moulded into a superficial resemblance to each other. Even if it were desirable to have the finished product exactly the same in both sexes, it does not follow that this result is to be obtained by subjecting men and women to the same discipline. Educationists are agreed that the need of the developing mind is the first thing to be consulted in framing methods and in organizing the work of the school. They rightly condemn not only a system which treats the boy as though he were a man, but also any feature of method that fails to secure adaptation, even in detail, of the teaching to the present condition of the pupil's mind. Yet many of them, strangely enough, insist that the same training shall he given to boys and girls in the secondary schools, that is at a period which is chiefly characterized by the manifestation of profound mental differences between one sex and the other. The attempt now so generally made to obviate the physiological and psychological difficulties of co-education by adapting the work of the school to the capacities and requirements of girls, can evidently have but one result, and that not a desirable one, so far as boys are concerned.

It must further be pointed out on vocational grounds that, since woman's work in the world is necessarily different from man's, there should he a corresponding difference in the preparation. Here again it is singular that while the whole trend of our schools is towards specialization in view of the needs of after-life, no such consideration should be had for diversity of calling based on diversity of sex. The student is encouraged to take up as early as possible the special lines of work that fit him for his chosen career in business, in literary work, or in any of the professions; yet for the essential duties of life, widely different as these are, men and women receive an identical education. However great be the share which woman is to take in "the public expression of the ideal energies, for morality and religion, for education and social reforms, and their embodiment, not in the home, but in the public consciousness" -- it still remains true that her success as a supporter of these ideal endeavours is closely bound up with the right discharge of those duties which are at once the lot and the privilege of her sex. Any influence that tends to make those duties less sacred to her or less attractive, is a menace to her individual perfection and may lead to far-reaching calamity. The lowering of sex tension, which is the strongest argument brought forward to support Co-education from the view-point of morality, turns out on closer inspection to be a fatal objection; it proves too much. The "indifference" which it is said to produce has its consequences beyond the limit of school-life, and these if left to work out their own results would be, as they undoubtedly are in many instances, antagonistic to the essential interests of family and home, and eventually of the national life as well.

The element of religious instruction, essential to Catholic schools, has a peculiar significance in the present problem. It not only gives free scope to ideal and æsthetic tendencies, but it also provides effectual safeguards against the dangers to which adolescence is exposed. As President Hall has said, "every glow of æsthetic appreciation for a great work of art, every thrill aroused by an act of sublime heroism, every pulse of religious aspiration weakens by just so much the potential energy of passion because it has found its kinetic equivalent in a higher form of expression" (Pedagogical Seminary, March, 1908). The "prophylactic value" of religious training is, from the Catholic point of view, far greater than that of the conditions which co-education involves and on which it depends for the development of character and morals. But this value of course can be got only hr teaching religion with the same thoroughness and the same perfection of method that characterizes the teaching of other subjects, and in such a way as to make the duties which religion imposes on both the sexes not merely pleasing items of knowledge, but also vital elements in habit and action. (See Education; Schools.)

For extended bibliographies see U. S. Commissioner's Report for 1900-01, xxviii; ibid. for 1903, xx: CLARK, Sex in Education (Boston, 1873); VAN DE WACHER, Woman's Unfitness for higher Education (New York, 1903); BRONS, Ueber die gemeinsame Erziehung beider Geschlecter an den höheren Schulen (Hamburg, 1889); HARRIS, Co-education of the Sexes in Report on Public Schools of St Louis Mo., 1872-3; DE GARMO, Differentiation in the Higher education of Women in Educ. Rev., 25, 301; SHIELDS, The Education of Our Girls (New York, 1907).

THOMAS E. SHIELDS.

Nicolas Coeffeteau

Preacher and controversialist, born 1574, at Château-du-Loir, province of Maine, France; died Paris, 21 April, 1623. Ha entered the Dominican convent of Sens, 1588, and after his profession, 1590, was sent to St-Jacques, the house of studies at Paris. There in 1595 he began to teach philosophy. On 4 May, 1600, he received the doctorate and was appointed regent of studies, which position he filled until 1606 and again from 1609 to the spring of 1612. He also served two terms as prior and was vicar-general of the French congregation from 1606 to 1609. At this time Coeffeteau had already acquired distinction by his preaching at Blois, Chartres, Angers, and in Paris. Queen Margaret of Valois had made him her almoner in 1602, and in 1608 he received the appointment of preacher in ordinary to King Henry IV. In June, 1617, he was proposed by Louis XIII and confirmed by Pope Paul V as titular Bishop of Dardania and Administrator of the Diocese of Mets. By his vigilance and zealous preaching he checked the spread of Calvinistic errors, renewed and re-established Divine services, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, especially in the great abbeys of Mets and in the monasteries of the diocese. After four years he was transferred, 22 Aug., 1621, to the Diocese of Marseilles; but ill-health kept him from his see. He secured François de Loménie as his coadjutor, but he himself remained at Paris until his death. He was buried in St. Thomas's chapel of the convent of St-Jacques. Coeffeteau's writings are chiefly polemical. Five treatises on the Eucharist were occasioned by a controversy with Pierre du Moulin, Calvinist minister of Charenton. Another series on ecclesiastical and pontifical authority was prompted by the action of the Fremich Protestants in relation to political and religious disturbances in England. At the request of Gregory XV, Coeffeteau wrote a refutation of the "De Republicâ Christianâ" by the apostate Archbishop of Spalato, Marc' Antonio de Dominis. In all these writings, at a time in which partisanship was wont to be violent, Coeffeteau maintained an equable temper and a praiseworthy spirit of moderation, always handling his subjects objectively and dispassionately. His erudition was extraordinary and he was possessed of a rare and penetrating critical judgment. On the question of papal power and authority, Coeffeteau's position is described as that of a modified Gallicanism. He held that the infallibility of the pope or of an œcumenical council was restricted to matters of faith and did not bear upon questions of fact or of persons. A council, he held, was not superior to a pope except in the case of schism, when it could depose the doubtful incumbent to elect one whose right and authority would be beyond question. In this Coeffeteau differed from the Sorbonne, which asserted the council's superiority in all cases. Besides being called the father of French eloquence, Coeffeteau was a recognized master of the French language. He was the first to use it as a means of theological expression, and the purity of his diction, especially in his historical writings and translations, is admitted and commended by many excellent authorities.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores Ord. Prœd., II, 434; COULON in VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1906), fase. XVIII, col. 267; URBAIN, Nicolas Coeffeteau (Paris, 1894).

JOHN R. VOLZ.

Coelchu

Also COLGA, COLCU (Lat. Colcus)

A distinguished Abbot of the School of Clonmacnoise in Ireland, who flourished during the latter half of the eighth century. He had been a student of this school, and had devoted himself especially to the study of St. Paul, whom he looked upon as his special patron. Coelchu was remarkable for his learning, and was surnamed the Scribe, and also the Wise. Colgan (Acta Sanctorum Hiberniæ) mentions one tract from the pen of Coelchu which was then extant, and which was entirely of a devotional character. He is generally assumed to be the person with whom Alcuin apparently had some correspondence. A letter of Alcuin's to him has been published by Ussher (Sylloge, Ep. xviii) and republished by Colgan. It is headed "Albini Magistri ad Colcum lectorem in Scotia. Benedicto magistro et pio patri Colcu Alcuinus humilis levita salutem". There can hardly be any doubt that the Colcu spoken of was the Abbot of Clonmacnoise, and that the writer of the letter was Alcuin, not Albin the companion of Clement, though there is no reason for concluding from the style of the address that Alcuin had ever been a student of Coelchu's at Clonmacnoise. In this letter Alcuin gives Coelchu an account of the state of religion on the Continent, mentions Joseph, one of Coelchu's pupils then in France, speaks of disputes between King Charles and Offa of Mercia, on account of which he himself was likely to be sent as negotiator into England. This clearly proves that the letter was written shortly before 790. He sends Coelchu presents of money from King Charles and from himself for the monastery of Clonmacnoise and for other monks in Ireland, and asks their prayers for himself and the king. There is another reference to Coelchu in Alcuin's letter to Joseph, mentioned already in the letter to Coelchu. Though Coelchu was spoken of as the Scribe or Doctor of all the Irish, none of his writings have come down to us.

COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniœ Louvain, 1645), 20 Feb., 378; USSHER, Sylloge (Dublin, 1632), Ep. xviii; WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1739-64), 511; MABILLON, Annales O. S. B., ad annum 790; LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829) III, 228-232.

JAMES MacCaffrey.

Theodore Coelde

(THEODORE OF MÜNSTER; THEODORE OF OSNABRÜCK; DERICK, DEDERICK, or DIETERICH, CÖLDE)

Friar Minor and missionary, born at Münster, in 1435; died at Louvain, 11 December, 1515. He was a different person from the Dominican, Theodore of Münster, and from the Augustinian, Theodore of Osnabrück; and was called Theodore von Münster (Theodoricus a Monasterio) from the place of his birth; and Theodore von Osnabrück from his father's native town. Coelde made his first studies at Cologne, and entered the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine at an early age. In 1454 he was received into the Franciscan Order in the Netherlands. When the plague broke out at Brussels in 1489, Coelde went about administering the last sacraments to the dying; and when the sacristan accompanying him fell a victim to the plague, Coelde attached the lantern to his girdle, and, with the pyx in one hand and the bell in the other, continued his ministrations. Before the end of the plague, more than thirty-two thousand had received the last rites of the Church from the heroic friar. In 1470 Coelde composed a brief, popular treatise on the truths of the Catholic Faith, entitled "Kerstenspiegel" or "Christenspiegel" (The Christian's Mirror), which is considered to be the first German catechism. It went through thirty-two editions in Low German and two in High German, and came to be used throughout Germany and the Netherlands as the principal work of popular instruction in religious matters. At the request of his friend and admirer, Archbishop Hermann, he wrote a series of meditations on the sufferings of Christ, which appeared probably about the same time as the "Christenspiegel". In 1618 the remains of Coelde were exhumed, and, after the suppression of the Franciscan convent at Louvain, were transferred to Saint-Trond, where they now repose behind the high altar.

SCHLAGER, Beiträge zur Geschichte der kölnischen Franziskaner-Ordensprovinz (Cologne, 1904), 190, passim; SCHOUTENS, Martyrologium Minoritico-Belgicum (Hoogstraeten, 1902), 211, 213.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN.

St. Kevin (Coemgen)

Abbot of Glendalough, Ireland, b. about 498, the date being very obscure; d. 3 June, 618; son of Coemlog and Coemell. His name signifies fair-begotten. He was baptized by St. Cronan and educated by St. Petroc, a Briton. From his twelfth year he studied under monks, and eventually embraced the monastic state. Subsequently he founded the famous monastery of Glendalough (the Valley of the Two Lakes), the parent of several other monastic foundations. After visiting Sts. Columba, Comgall, and Cannich at Usneach (Usny Hill) in Westmeath, he proceeded to Clonmacnoise, where St. Cieran had died three days before, in 544. Having firmly established his community, he retired into solitude for four years, and only returned to Glendalough at the earnest entreaty of his monks. He belonged to the second order of Irish saints and probably was never a bishop. So numerous were his followers that Glendalough became a veritable city in the desert. His festival is kept throughout Ireland. Glendalough became an episcopal see, but is now incorporated with Dublin. St. Kevin's house and St. Kevin's bed of rock are still to be seen: and the Seven Churches of Glendalough have for centuries been visited by pilgrims.

O'HANLON, Lives of Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), VI, 28 sqq.; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical Hist. or Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II; OLDEN in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

Coenred

(Or CENRED, also COENRÆD, COINRED, KENRED, and CHRENRED)

King of Mercia (reigned 704-709); date of birth and death unknown. He was the son of King Wulfhere and his Queen Eormengild. When Wulfhere died, in 675, Coenred was probably too young to succeed, and his uncle Æthelred ascended the throne. The A. S. Chronicle speaks of Coenred becoming King of the Southumbrians (a name very rarely used) in 702, and succeeding to the throne of Mercia in 704, when Æthelred retired to the cloister. Southumbria probably designates the northern portion of Mercia, which Æthelred recovered from Northumbria. It is inferred that the people of this region rebelled against Æthelred and chose Coenred for their king, and later induced Æthelred to resign the whole of Mercia in favour of Coenred in 704. A reaction against the Southumbrians took place in 709, when Coenred abdicated in favour of Coelred, the son of Æthelred. Coenred then accompanied Offa, King of the East Saxons, to Rome, where he received the monastic habit from Pope Constantine. He was present at a council of the Mercian clergy in 705, and his name appears on several charters granting lands to Waldhere, Bishop of London, to Cuthswith, Abbess of Worcester, and also to the Abbey of Evesham. It does not appear that he was ever married. A great lover of peace, and of a pious disposition, he was more suited for the cloister than the throne. St. Bede tells us that he befriended St. Wilfrid when in exile, and relates in detail his efforts to convert to a better life one of his chief nobles, who finally died in despair.

LINGARD, Hist. of England, I. iii; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ad ann. 702, 704, 709; BEDE, Eccl. Hist., bk. V, xiii, xix, xxiv; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gest. Reg. (Eng. Hist. Soc.), i, iii; IDEM, Gest. Pont., 239, 317, 351-2, 386; HADDAN AND STUBBS, Councils, III, 273.

G. E. HIND.

Coeur d'Alêne Indians

A small tribe of Salishan stock formerly ranging along the lake and river of the same name in Northern Idaho, U. S. A., and now residing upon a reservation established in 1873 within the same boundaries. The name by which they are commonly known, signifying "awl heart", is said, although doubtfully, to have been originally a nick-name given by the French traders to a chief of the tribe noted for his stinginess. They call themselves Skitswish. When first noticed by the American explorers, Lewis and Clark, in 1805, the Coeur d'Alêne were a wandering, poverty-stricken people, dwelling in mat-covered communal houses on the border of the lake, and subsisting chiefly upon fish and wild roots. In disposition they were peaceful, brave and honest, and at a later period, having acquired through the French and Iroquois employees of the Hudson Bay Company an idea of the Catholic religion, many of them, as well as the Flatheads, Nez Percés, and others, voluntarily adopted a system of Christian prayers and church forms. In 1841 the Jesuit, Nicholas Point, a companion of De Smet, established the Sacred Heart (now De Smet) mission among them, with such wonderful success that within ten years the entire tribe had become Christian, civilized, and comfortably self-supporting.

In his official report to the Indian Office in 1854, Governor Stevens of Washington says: "It is indeed extraordinary what the good fathers have done at the Coeur d'Alêne mission. They have a splendid church nearly finished by the labours of the fathers, laymen, and Indians; a large barn; a horse mill for flour; a small range of buildings for the accommodation of the priests and laymen; a store room; a milk or dairy room; a cook room, and good arrangements for their pigs and cattle. they are putting up a new range of quarters, and the Indians have some twelve comfortable log cabins. The church was designed by the superior of the mission, Père Avilé, a man of skill as an architect, and undoubtedly, judging from his well-thumbed books, of various accomplishments. Père Gazzoli showed me several designs for the altar, all of them characterized by good taste and harmony of proportion. The church, as a specimen of architecture, would do credit to anyone, and has been faithfully sketched by our artist, Mr. Stanley. The massive timbers supporting the altar were from larch trees five feet in diameter, and were raised to their place by the Indians, simply with the aid of a pulley and rope. They have a large cultivated field of some 200 acres, and a prairie of from 2000 to 3000 acres. They own a hundred pigs, eight yoke of oxen, twenty cows, and a liberal proportion of horses, mules, and young animals. The Indians have learned to plough, sow, till the soil generally, milk cows, and do all the duties incident to a farm. They are some of them expert wood cutters, and I saw some thirty or forty Indians at work getting in the harvest." All this in thirteen years in the heart of the wilderness, two thousand miles from the frontier town of St. Louis.

The mission still continues to mould the tribal life, and official reports show that the same high standard is maintained, each year showing an advance in prosperity and general intelligence. The tribe is increasing, and numbered 492 souls in 1906.

Annual Report of the Commission of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1831-1906); LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals (New York, 1905); MOONEY, art. Missions in Handbook of American Indians (Washington, 1907); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1855); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); STEVENS, in Report of Commission of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1854).

JAMES MOONEY

Edward Coffin

(Alias HATTON.)

An English Jesuit and missionary, born at Exeter, 1570; died 17 April, 1626, at Saint-Omer's College. After studies at Reims and Ingolstadt he was ordained at the English College, Rome, and sent to England. In 1598 he entered the Society. On his way to the novitiate in Flanders, he was seized by the Dutch, near Antwerp, and taken to England, where he was imprisoned for five years. Banished from England in 1603, he acted for twenty years as confessor at the English College, Rome. He volunteered for England again, but died on the journey. He wrote the preface to Father Person's "Discussion of Mr. Barlowe's Answer" (Saint-Omer, 1612), Refutation of Hall, Dean of Worcester's "Discourse for the Marriage of Ecclesiastical Persons" (1619), "Art of Dying Well", from the Latin of Bellarmine (1621); "True Relation of Sickness and Death of Cardinal Bellarmine", by C.E. of the Society of Jesus (1622), tr. into Latin, "De Morte", etc. (Saint-Omer 1623 8vo.); "Marci Antonii de Dominis Palinodia" (Saint-Omer, 1623), tr. by Dr. Fletcher in 1827 as "My Motives for Renouncing the Protestant Religion"; "De Martyrio PP. Roberts, Wilson et Napper" (Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia, III, n. 103).

PATRICK RYAN

Robert Aston Coffin

An ecclesiastical writer and bishop, b. at Brighton, England, 19 July, 1819; d. at Teignmouth, Devonshire, 6 April, 1885. He received his secondary education at Harrow and in 1837 went to Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his B.A. degree with honours in 1840. He then prepared himself for the ministry and, having received Anglican orders from the Bishop of Oxford, he was appointed in 1843 vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford. While at Oxford he had become a follower of Dr. Newman, and like so many others who had joined the Oxford or Tractarian Movement he left the Anglican Church and was received into the Catholic Church at Prior Park on the feast of St. Francis Xavier, 3 December, 1845, two months after the reception of Dr. Newman. Having spent a year as tutor in the family of Mr. Ambrose de Lisle, he followed Newman to Rome to prepare himself for the priesthood, and was ordained 31 October, 1847, by the cardinal vicar. In the meantime Dr. Newman had been authorized by Pius IX to found the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in England. When, in June, 1848, the Oratory was established, Father Coffin with other convert priests joined it, and he was appointed superior of St. Wilfrid's, Cotton Hall. The next year he followed a strong attraction he had felt since his conversion for the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, left the Oratory, and entered the Redemptorist novitiate at Saint-Trond, in Belgium. Having made his profession on 2 February, 1852, he returned to England and began his long and fruitful career as a zealous Redemptorist missionary. From 1850 to 1865 he was rector of St. Mary's, Clapham and from the latter year till 1882 he held the office of provincial of the English Redemptorists. These offices, however, did not prevent him from zealously labouring with pen and tongue, for, from 1852 to 1872, he was almost constantly engaged in giving missions and clergy retreats throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, and in publishing many ascetical books.

After the death of Dr. Danell, the second Bishop of Southwark, Father Coffin was chosen as his successor, and was consecrated in Rome by Cardinal Howard, in the church of S. Alfonso, 11 June, 1882, taking possession of his see on 27 July. After an illness of several months, borne with great fortitude, Bishop Coffin died at Teignmouth, in the house of the Redemptorists which he himself had founded when provincial. "Although his name was at no time conspicuously before the world, his influence had been widely and deeply felt, and few ecclesiastics in England were held in greater esteem or affection. By the publication of many of the works of St. Alphonsus, by his labours as a preacher and missionary in his younger days, by his numerous retreats, especially to the clergy, and still more by his government of the Province of the Congregation of the Most Holy redeemer in England, Scotland, and Ireland during nearly twenty vears, he performed a quiet, solid and enduring work which will be felt for many generations" ("The Tablet", London). Among his publications are the following English translations of the Italian works of St. Alphonsus: "The Glories of Mary" (London, 1862, 1868), "The Mysteries of the Faith: The Incarnation" (London, 1854); "The Christian Virtues" (London, 1854), "The Mysteries of the Faith: The Eucharist" (London, 1855), "Visits to the Most Holy Sacrament" (London, 1855); "The Eternal Truths" (London, 1857); "A Devotion in Honour of St. Joseph" (London, I860); "The Mysteries of the Faith: The Redemption" (London, 1861); "Hymns and Verses on Spiritual Subjects" (London, 1863). He also published a translation of "The Oratory of the Faithful Soul" by Blosius (London, 1848), and several pastoral letters.

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng..Cath., s. v.; The Tablet (London, 11 April, 1885).

B. GUIDNER

Cogitosus

An Irishman, an author, and a monk of Kildare; the date and place of his birth and of his death are unknown, it is uncertain even in what century he lived. In the one work which he wrote, his life of St. Brigid, he asks a prayer pro me nepote culpabili, from which both Ware and Ussher conclude that he was a nephew of St. Brigid, and, accordingly, he is put down by them among the writers of the sixth century. But the word nepos may also be applied to one who, like the prodigal, had lived riotously, and it may be, that Cogitosus, recalling some former lapses from virtue, so uses the word of himself. At all events, his editor, Vossius, is quite satisfied that Cogitosus was no nephew of St. Brigid, because in two genealogical menologies which Vossius had, in which were enumerated the names of fourteen holy men of that saint's family the name of Cogitosus is not to be found. Nor did the latter live in the sixth century because he speaks of a long succession of bishops and abbesses at Kildare, showing that he writes of a period long after the time of St. Brigid, who died in 525, and of St. Conleth, who died a few years earlier. Besides this, the description of the church of Kildare belongs to a much later time; and the author calls St. Conleth an archbishop, a term not usual in the Western church until the opening of the ninth century. On the other hand, he describes Kildare before it was plundered by the Danes, in 835, and before St. Brigades remains were removed to Down. The probability therefore is that he lived and wrote the life of St. Brigid about the beginning of the ninth century. His work is a panegyric rather than a biography. He gives so few details of the saint's life that he omits the date and place of her birth and the date of her death; nor does he make mention of any of her contemporaries if we except St. Conleth, the first Bishop of Kildare, an Macaille from whom she received the veil. He gives the names of her parents, but is careful to conceal the fact that she was illegitimate, and that her mother was a slave. On the other hand, he dwells with evident satisfaction on her piety, her humility, her charity, her zeal for religion, the esteem in which she was held by all. And he narrates at length the many miracles she wrought, and tells of the numbers who came as pilgrims to Kildare, attracted by her fame. In his anxiety to exalt her he says she had as abbess authority over all the abbesses of Ireland, although as a matter of fact she could govern only those who followed her rule; and his statement that she appointed the Bishop of Kildare could not, of course, mean that she conferred any jurisdiction. Cogitosus writes in fairly good Latin, much better indeed than might be expected in that age, and his description of the church of Kiildare with its interior decorations is specially interesting for the history of early Irish art and architecture.

E.A. D'ALTON

Diego López de Cogolludo

One of the chief historians of Yucatan. His work, the "Historia de Yucatan", which appeared at Madrid in 1688, and was reprinted in 1842 and 1867, is an important work, full of information personally gathered at a time when older sources, written and oral, that have now partly disappeared, were accessible. Cogolludo consulted and used the writings of Bishop Diego de Landa to a considerable extent, but many of his statements must be taken with cautious criticism. He was a native of Alcalá de Henares in Spain, and took the habit of St. Francis at the convent of San Diego, 31 March, 1629. He emigrated to Yucatan, where he became successively lector in theology, guardian, and finally provincial of his order.

AD. F. BANDELIER

Hermann Cohen

A Discalced Carmelite (Augustin-Marie of the Blessed Sacrament, generally known as Father Hermann), born at Hamburg, Germany, 10 November, 1820; died at Spandau, 20 January, 1871. The son of a Jewish merchant, he devoted himself to music, which he studied under Liszt at Paris, where he joined a brilliant but frivolous circle, to the detriment of his morals. One day, in May, 1847, while leading the choir at Benediction in the church of Sainte-Valérie, he felt himself touched by Divine grace, and, after a short sojourn at Ems, resolved to become a Christian. Baptized 28 August, he instituted with De la Bouillerie the pious practice of the nocturnal adoration; he entered the Carmelite novitiate at Broussey, made his profession 7 October 1850, and was ordained priest 19 April of the following year. His fiery eloquence and the stir caused by his conversion made him a favorite preacher, notwithstanding insufficient studies. He was instrumental in the foundation of convents at Bagnères-de-Bigorre (1853), Lyons (1857), the Desert of Tarasteix near Lourdes (1857), and in London (1862), where he had been known during his artistic career. After some years spent in England he went on a preaching tour through Germany and France and ultimately to Tarasteix. At the outbreak of the Franco-German War he fled to Switzerland, and later on took charge of the lazaretto at Spandau, where he contracted smallpox. He was buried in St. Hedwig's church, Berlin. Among his works are Le Catholicisme en Agnleterre, a speech delivered at Mechlin, also in English (Paris, 1864); Gloire à Marie (1849); Amour à Jésus (1851); Fleurs du Carmel; Couronnement de la Madonne; Thabor (1870), five collections of sacred songs with accompaniment, pious but somewhat shallow; this also holds good of his Mass (1856).

B. ZIMMERMAN

Diocese of Coimbatore

(KOIMBATUR; COIMBATURENSIS).

The City of Coimbatore is the capital of the district of Coimbatore in Madras, British India, situated on the River Noyel. Its population in 1901 was 53, 080 of these 3, 000 are Catholics. The diocese embraces the Collectorate of Coimbatore (except the Taluk of the Collegal), the Nilgiris with the south-eastern Wynaad, the Taluks of Palgat, Collancodoo, Tamalpuram, and part of Wallavanad, the Chittur Taluks, and the Nelliampathy Hills in the Cochin territoty. In 1846 Coimbatore was separated from the Vicariate Apostolic of Pondicherry, and in 1850 was made a vicariate Apostolic. On 1 Sept., 1886, it was constituted a diocese, and the Right Rev. Joseph Louis Bardon, Bishop of Telmessus, who had been vicar Apostolic, was chosen as its bishop.

The total population of the diocese is 2,500,000, of whom 37,080 are Catholics. There are 41 European and 13 native priests. In the ecclesiastical seminary are 14 students. The diocese has 2 religious communities of men and 3 of women. There are for boys a second-grade college, a middle school, and a high school; and for girls eighteen convent schools. There are also 67 elementary schools, with 4239 pupils. There are 2 hospitals, 4 orphanages, and an industrial school.

LEO A. KELLY Transcibed by Joseph P. Thomas

Diocese of Coimbra

(Conimbricensis).

In Portugal, suffragan of Braga, in the province of Beira. The cathedral city has 13,369 inhabitants. The first known bishop was Lucentius, who assisted (563) at the first council of Braga, the metropolitan See of Coimbra, until the latter was attached to the ecclesiastical province of Mérida (650-62). Titular bishops of Coimbra continued the succession under the Arab conquest, one of whom witnessed the consecration of the church of Santiago de Composotela in 876. The see was re-established in 1088, after the re-conquest of the city by the Christians (1064). The first bishop of the new series was Martin. Among the more famous bishops have been Pedro (1300), chancellor of King Diniz, and Manoel de Menezes (1573-78), rector of the university, who fell with Dom Sebastian on the field of Kassr-el-Kaber. The old cathedral of Coimbra, built in the first half of the twelfth century, partly at the expense of Bishop Miguel and his chapter, is a remarkable monument of Romanesque architecture; the new cathedral, a Renaissance building dating from 1580, is of little interest. The episcopal palace was also built in the eighteenth century. The principal monastery of the diocese is that of Santa Cruz, founded in 1131 by Alfonso VII, and for some time the most important in the kingdom by reason of its wealth and privileges. Its prior was authorized by Anastasius IV and Celestine III to wear the episcopal insignia. In 1904 the diocese had a population of 875,853, divided among 308 parishes.

Florez, Espaûa Segrada (Madrid, 1759), XIV, 71-96; Borges de Figueiredo, Coimbra antiga e moderna (Lisbon, 1886).

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

University of Coimbra

The earliest certain information concerning a university in Portugal dates from 1288, when the Abbott of Alcobaza, several priors of convents, and parish priests, made known to Nicholas IV that they had obtained from King Diniz the foundation of a "Studium Generale" at Lisbon and had arranged among themselves to defray the salaries of the doctors and masters from the revenues of their monasteries and churches; they besought the pope to confirm this agreement and to protect the work they were undertaking "for the service of God and the glory of their country". In a Bull of 9 August, 1290, addressed to the "University of the masters and students of Lisbon", the pope acceded to their request and expressed his satisfaction with the creation of this new seat of studies. This Bull sanctions taxation of lodgings in the Paris and Bologna fashion, grants dispensation from residence to masters and students and authorizes the Bishop of Lisbon (or, sede vacante, the Vicar-capitular), to confer the jus ubique docendi on all faculties except Theology. Frequent quarrels between the students and the citizens led the King of Portugal to request the pope to transfer the new school to Coimbra, a more tranquil place, and to grant at the same time to the new foundation, all of the "privileges" of the former one. The transfer took place 15 February, 1308, on which date King Diniz issued the charter of foundation, quite similar to that of Alfonso the wise for the University of Salamanca in Castile. The sciences then taught at Coimbra were canon and civil law, medicine, dialectic, and grammar. Theology was taught in the convents of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. For reasons unknown to us, the university was again moved to Lisbon in 1339, by order of Alfonso IV. In 1354 it returned to Coimbra, only to be transferred to Lisbon in 1377. From this time until its final transfer to Coimbra in 1537, the university enjoyed greater prosperity. At the beginning of the fifteenth century theology appears regularly as one of the sciences taught there.

During the reign of John III (1521-57) important reforms were carried out, and the university reached the acme of its career. The faculties hitherto widely scattered in different edifices were brought together under one roof in the "Palacio del Rey", new and illustrious professors were invited from Castile; for the faculty of theology, Alfonso de Prado and Antonio de Fonseca, the latter a doctor of Paris; for the faculty of law the famous canonist Martin de Aspilcueta (Doctor Navarrus), Manuel de Costa, and Antonio Suarez, all three from Salamanca; and for medicine Francisco Franco and Rodrigo Reinoso. The classical languages and literatures were taught in the Colegio de la Artes, as a preparation for the graver studies of the university; this college was at first quite independent of the latter, but was eventually incorporated with it and confided to the Jesuits. One of its first professors was the Scotch Latinist, George Buchanan, later a follower of John Knox and a reviler of Mary Stuart. The colleges of Sïo Pedro and Sïo Paolo were founded for graduates (doctors) who purposed to devote themselves to teaching; other colleges were founded for the students of various religious orders in which they might follow the common life while pursuing their studies at the university. New reforms were inaugurated in 1770, when (23 December) King José I, on the initiative of the Marquis de Pombal, appointed a commission to consider the reorganization of the university. The commission advised the creation of two new faculties, mathematics and natural philosophy, leaving intact the older faculties of theology, canon law, civil law, and medicine. New professors were brought from Italy, Michele Franzini for mathematics, and Dominican Vandelli for natural history. The former Jesuit college, confiscated at the time of the expulsion of the Society from Portugal, was turned over to the faculty of medicine for its clinics and laboratories. The laboratories for physics, chemistry, and natural history were also located there; finally a botanical garden was added. At the end of the eighteenth century, metallurgy was taught by José Bonifacio de Andrade, and hydraulics by Manoel Pedro de Mello, both scholars of repute. In 1907 the University of Coimbra had five faculties, theology, law, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. Its professors numbered (1905-06) 68, and its students 2916. The library now contains about 100,000 volumes. (See Conimbricenses.)

Denifle, Die Entstehung der Universitèten des Mittelalters bis 1440 (Berlin, 1885), 519-534; Visconde de Villa-Major, Eposiïoa succinta da organisaïao actual da Universidade de Coimbra (Lisbon, 1892-1902), I-IV; Minerva, Jahrbuch des gelehrten Welt (Strasburg, 1907).

EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA

Jean-Baptiste Colbert

Marquis de Seignelay, statesman, b. at Rheims, France, 1619; d. at Paris, 1683. Noticed by Mazarin and recommended by him to Louis XIV he became at the latter's death, controller of finances. Through the control of finances he organized nearly every public service in France. Of him, Mme. de Sévigné said: "M. de Colbert thinks of finances only and never of religion." This should not, however, be taken too literally. Colbert was deeply religious, but his religion was tinctured with the evils of the day, Gallicanism and Jansenism. It was Colbert who suggested to Louis XIV the convening of the famous Assembly of the Clergy in 1682 which formulated the four propositions of Gallicanism. In the conflicts which arose between the court of France and Rome Colbert used his influence against Rome. Protestants looked to him as to their protector. The Jansenist De Bourseys was his evil genius as well as his informant on religious questions. Influenced by De Bourseys, he failed to see the real danger of Jansenism, and by treating it with levity, gave it encouragement. The Colbert family gave to the Church a number of nuns and ecclesiastics. Charles Gérin says: "His sisters controlled the great abbeys of Sainte-Marie de Challot, of Sainte-Claire de Reims and of the LeLys near Melun. One of his brothers (Nicolas, 1627-1676) Bishop of Luçon and afterwards of Auxerre, having died, he caused to be appointed in his place his cousin André (1647-1702) who was a member of the assembly of 1682, with another of his cousins, Colbert de St. Pouange, Bishop of Montauban." This passage omits the following three best known kinsmen of the great Colbert.

II. JACQUES-NICOLAS COLBERT (1655-1707)

Archbishop of Rouen. Fisquet (La France pontificale, Rouen, p. 253) describes him as a worthy and learned prelate giving his principal care to the training of his clerics. C. Gérin (loc. cit., p. 188), however, reproaches him for being worldly, a spendthrift, and, in spite of his pompous declarations of orthodoxy, no less sympathetic to Jansenism than his cousin, the Bishop of Montepellier.

III. CHARLES-JOACHIM COLBERT (1667-1738)

Bishop of Montepellier, and a militant Jansenist. He firt appeared to submit to the Bull "Vineam Domini" of Innocent XI, 1705, but when Clement XI issued the Bull "Unigenitus", 1713, he openly sided with the appellants Soanen of Senez, de la Broue of Mirepoix, and Langle of Boulogne. The works published under his name (Montepellier, 1740) are probably, at least in part, from the pen of his advisers, Gaultier and Croz, who are moreover charged with the perversion of their master. In 1702, one of his priests, the Oratorian Pouget, published, at his request, the "Catéchisme de Montpellier" a remarkable book but tinctured with Jansenism and condemned by the Holy See, 1712 and 1721.

IV. MICHEL COLBERT (1633-1702)

An ascetic writer and superior of the Premonstrants. His election was somewhat irregular and had to be validated by papal rescript. He is the author of "Lettres d'un Abbé à ses religieux" and "Lettre de Consolation".

FISQUET, La France pontificale (Paris, s. d.) under the various dioceses referred to above; G=C9RIN, Recherches sur l'assemblée du clergé de 1682 (Paris,1869); BESOIGNE, Vie des Quatre év=EAques engagés dans la cause de Port-Royal (Cologne, 1756); CLEMENT, Histoire de Colbert (Paris, 1875); RAPIN, Mémoires (Paris, 1865); JAL, Dict. critique (Paris, 1867); GAUCHIE in Rev. Hist. Eccl. (Louvain, 1903), III, 983; WAKEMAN, Europe (New York, 1905), 202.

J.F. SOLLIER

Henry Cole

A confessor of the Faith, b. at Godshill, Isle of Wight, about 1500; d. in the Fleet Prison, February, 1579 or 1580. He was educated at Winchester and New College Oxford, admitted a perpetual fellow there (1523), received the degree of B.C.L. (1525), and then went to Italy for seven years, residing chiefly at Padua. During his career he was successively prebendary of Yatminster (1539) rector of Chelmsford, Essex, prebendary of Holborn, sweting (1541), and Wenlakesbarn (1542), warden of New College (1542-51), and rector of Newton Longue-ville in Buckinghamshire. Created a D.C.L. at Oxford (1540), he resigned his fellowship the same year. At first he conformed to the Protestant religion but afterwards saw his error, returned to the Catholic Faith about 1547, and eventually resigned all his preferments. In Mary's reign he became Archdeacon of Ely, a canon of Westminster (1554), vicar-general of Cardinal Pole (1557), and a judge of the archiepiscopal Court of Audience. He was one of the commissioners who restored Tunstal and Bonner to their bishoprics, a disputant against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer at Oxford (1554), a delegate for the visitation of Oxford (1556), and Visitor of All Souls College in 1558, in which year he received the rectory of Wrotham, and was sent to Ireland with a commission for the suppression of heresy there. Cardinal Pole appointed Cole one of his executors. During Elizabeth's reign he remained true to the Catholic Faith and took part in the discussions begun at Westminster in 1559. Then began his sufferings: first, he was fined 500 marks ($1600), then deprived of all his preferments, committed to the Tower (20 May, 1560), and finally removed to the Fleet (10 June), where he remained for nearly twenty years, until his death. He wrote: letters to Dr. Starkey and Sir Richard Morysin from Padua, 1530, and Paris, 1537; "Disputation with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer at Oxford", in Fox's "Acts and Monuments", "Sum and effect of his sermon at Oxford when Archbishop Cranmer was burnt", in Fox's "Acts and Monuments"; "Answer to the first proposition of the Protestants at the disputation before the Lords at Westminster 1559", in Burnet's "Hist. Reform. Records"; "Copie of a Sermon at Paule's Crosse 1560" (London, 1560), "Letters to John, Bishop of Sarum" (London, 1560); "Answers to certain parcels of the Letters of the Bishop of Sarum", in Jewel's works.

G.E. HIND

Edward Coleman

A controversialist, politician, and secretary of the Duchess of York, date of birth unknown; executed at Tyburn, 3 December, 1678. He was the son of a Suffolk clergyman and, after a distinguished career at Cambridge, became a Catholic and was employed by the Duchess of York. As her secretary he became acquainted with continental statesmen from whom he sought pecuniary help when in difficulties. In 1675 he offered his services in favour of Catholicism to Père La Chaise, the confessor of Louis XIV; again in 1676 he was in communication with Father Saint-Germain, offering his assistance to prevent a rupture between England and France. These attempts to procure money failed, but he succeeded later in obtaining £3500 from three successive French ambassadors whom he supplied with daily information regarding the proceedings of Parliament. He became a suspected character, and on the discovery of the Titus Oates Plot, conceived in 1678 for the ruin of the Duke of York whose Catholicity was suspected Coleman was named as one of the conspirators. Conscious of his innocence he took no steps to protect himself, allowed his papers to be seized, and gave himself up for examination. He was tried 28 Nov., 1678, being accused of corresponding with foreign powers for the subversion of the Protestant religion, and of consenting to a resolution to murder the king. His defense was that he had only endeavoured to procure liberty of conscience for Catholics constitutionally through Parliament, and had sought money abroad to further this object. He denied absolutely any complicity with the plot against the king's life. His foreign correspondence of 1675 and 1676, when examined, proved him to be an intriguer, but contained nothing that could connect him in any way with designs on the king's life. However, in spite of the flagrantly false testimony of Oates and Bedloe, he was found guilty, drawn to Tyburn, and there executed. He was a good linguist, writer, and controversialist. His controversy with Drs. Stillingfleet and Burnet resulted in the conversion of Lady Tyrwhit to the Catholic religion. His writings were: "Reasons for Dissolving Parliament", "Two Letters to M. La Chaise, the French King's Confessor" (London 1678, reprinted in Cobbett's "Parliamentary History"; "The Tryal of Edward Coleman" etc. (London, 1678); "Legacies; a Poem", etc. (London, 1679).

G.E. HIND

Henry James Coleridge

A writer and preacher, b. 20 September 1822, in Devonshire, England; d. at Roehampton, 13 April 1893. He was the son of Sir John Taylor Coleridge, a Judge of the King's Bench, and brother of John Duke, Lord Coleridge, Chief Justice of England. His grandfather, Captain James Coleridge, was brother to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the poet and philosopher. He was sent to Eton at the age of thirteen and thence to Oxford, having obtained a scholarship at Trinity College. His university career was distinguished; in 1844 he took the highest honours in a fellowship at Oriel, then the blue ribbon of the university. In 1848 he received Anglican orders. The Tractarian movement being then at its height, Coleridge, with many of his tutors and friends, joined its ranks and was an ardent disciple of Newman till his conversion. He was one of those who started "The Guardian" newspaper as the organ of the High Church partly being for a time its Oxford sub-editor. Gradually various incidents, the secession of Newman, Dr. Hampden's appointment as Regius Professor of Theology, the condemnation and suspension of Dr. Pusey, the condemnation and deprivation of W.G. Ward, and the decision in the celebrated Gorham case, seriously shook his confidence in the Church of England. In consequence Dr. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel, declined to admit him as a college tutor, and he therefore accepted a curacy at Alphinton, a parish recently separated from that od Ottery St. Mary, the home of his family, where his father had built for him a house and school. Here, with most congenial work, he was in close connection with those to whom he was already bound by a singular affection. His doubts as to his religious position continued, however, to grow and early in 1852 he determined that he could no longer remain in the Anglican Communion.

On Quinquagesima Sunday (February 22) he bade farewell to Alphington, and in April, after a retreat at Clapham under the Redemptorist Fathers he was received into the Catholic Church. Determined to be a priest he proceeded in the following September to Rome and entered Accademia dei Nobili, where he had for companions several of his Oxford friends, and others, including the future Cardinals Manning and Vaughan. He was ordained in 1856 and six months later took the degree of D.D. In the summer of 1857 he returned to England, and on the 7th of September entered the Jesuit Novitiate, which was then at Beaumont Lodge, Old Windsor, his novice master being Father Thomas Tracy Clarke, for whom to the end of his life he entertained the highest admiration and esteem. In 1859 he was sent to the Theological College of St. Bruno's, North Wales, as a professor of Scripture, and remained there until, in 1865, he was called to London to become the first Jesuit editor of "The Month", a magazine started under other management in the previous year. Then cornmenced a course of indefatigable literary labour by as which he is best known. Besides the editorship of "The Month", to which, after the death of Father William Maher, in 1877, he added that of "The Messenger", and for which he was one of the most prolific writers, Father Coleridge projected and carried on the well known Quarterly Series to which he himself largely contributed, both with his great work "The Public Life of Our Lord" and others, such as "The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier" and "The Life and Letters of St. Teresa". Worthy of mention also is his Harmony of the Gospels, "Vita Vitae Nostrae", a favourite book for meditation, published also in an English version. Studies based on the New Testament were his work of predilection, a taste which seems to have been acquired, at least in part from his old Oxford tutor, Isaac Williams. For a time he was also superior of his religious brethren in Farm Street, London. In 1881 failing health obliged him to resign "The Month" to another Oxonian, Father Richard F. Clarke, but he continued to labour on "The Life of Our Lord" which he earnestly desired to finish. In 1890 a paralytic seizure compelled him to withdraw to the novitiate at Roehampton, where, with indomitable spirit, he succeeded in completing his magnum opus before passing away. The chief sources for his life are articles in The Month, June, 1893, by his friend James Patterson, Bishop of Emmaus, and Father Richard F. Clarke, S.J.

JOHN GERARD

John Colet

Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral and founder of St. Paul's School, London; b. in London, 1467; d. there 18 Sept., 1519. He was the eldest son of Sir Henry Colet, twice Lord Mayor of London. Having finished his schooling in London, he was sent to Oxford, but no particulars of his life there have been preserved, not even the name of his college. While at Oxford he determined to become a priest and even before ordination obtained through family influence much preferment, including the livings of St. Mary Dennington, Suffolk, St. Dunstan, Stepney, and the benefices in the counties of Huntingdon, Northamptos, York, and Norfolk. In 1493 he began a tour through France and Italy, studying as he went and acquiring that love of the new learning which marked his after-life. Returning to England in 1496, he prepared for ordination, and became deacon on 17 Dec., 1497, and priest on 25 March, 1497-8. He lectured at Oxford on St. Paul's Epistles, introducing a new treatment by abandoning the purely textual commentary then usual, in favour of a study of the personality of St. Paul and of the text as a whole. In 1498 he met Erasmus at Oxford, with whom he immediately became intimate, arousing in him especially a distrust of the later schoolmen. Colet's lectures on the New Testament continued for five years, until in 1504 he was made Dean of St. Paul's proceeding D.D before he left Oxford. In London he became the intimate friend and spiritual adviser of Sir Thomas More. At the death of his father in 1505 he inherited a fortune, which he devoted to public purposes. His administration of the cathedral was vigorous, and in 1509 he began the foundation of the great school with which his name will ever be associated. The cost of the buildings and endowments is estimated at forty thousand pounds in present value. The object was to provide a sound Christian education. Greek was to be at least of equal importance with Latin. William Lilly was the first head master, but Colet exercised a close personal supervision over the school, even composing some of the textbooks. In 1512 he was accused of advanced views and was in difficulties with his bishop, but on the trial Archbishop Warham dismissed the charges as frivolous. It may well be that Colet, irritated by obvious abuses and not seeing how far the reaction would go, used language on certain points which in the light of after-events is regrettable, but there can be no doubt as to his own orthodoxy and devotion. In 1518 he completed the revised statutes of his school. At his death the following year he was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral. His school remained on its original site until 1884, when it was removed to Hammersmith.

Colet's works are: "Convocation Sermon of 1512"; "A righte fruitfull admonition concerning the order of a good Christian man's life" (1534); "Joannis Coleti Theologi olim Decani Divi Pauli Aeditio" (1527 and often reprinted), the original of almost all Latin Grammars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; "Opus de Sacramentis Ecclesiae" (1867), which with the following treatises, long preserved in MS., was finally edited by the Rev. J. H. Lupton, sur-master of the school; two treatises on the "Hierarchies" of Dionysius (1869); "An Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans" (1873); "An Exposition of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians" (1874); "Letters to Radulphus" on the Mosaic account of the Creation, and some minor works (1876); "Statutes of St. Paul's School" (often reprinted). Pitts (de Ang. Scriptoribus, Paris, 1619) gives several additional works by Colet, none of which are extant. Many of his letters are in the works of Erasmus.

The account of Colet by Erasmus in "Epistolae" (Leyden, III, cccxxxv, tr. LUPTON (London, 1883), was the foundation of most of his biographies published before the end of the seventeenth century. Since then there have been several lives published, none by a Catholic writer.-KNIGHT, "Life of John Colet" (London, 1724; republished Oxford, 1823; written with strong Protestant bias); SEEBOHM, "Oxford Reformers: Colet, Erasmus and More" (London, 1867); LUPTON, "Life of John Colet" (London, 1887). For a bibliography see LUPTON, "Introduction to Colet's Letters to Radulphus"; GARDINER, "Register of St. Paul's School" (London, 1884); LEE in "Dict. Nat. Biog." (London, 1887), XI, 321-328, with account of various Colet MSS. Still existing.

EDWIN BURTON

Nicola Coleti

(COLETTI)

Priest and historian, b. at Venice, 1680; d. in the same city, 1765. He studied at Padua, where he received the degree of Doctor. He was sent to the church of San Mois=E8 at Venice, and there devoted himself to historical and antiquarian research. His first work of importance was a new edition of Ughelli's "Italia Sacra" published in ten volumes from 1717 to 1722. Besides correcting many errors, Coleti continued Ughelli's history to the beginning of the eighteenth century. Coleti then undertook the compilation of his large work entitled "Collectio Conciliorum". Up to this time there had been two standard histories of the councils, that of Labbe and Cossart (Paris, 1671-72), and that of Hardouin (Paris, 1715). Baluze had begun a similar work, but only the first volume had appeared. Coleti's collection was based on that of Labbe, though he availed himself of the labours of Baluze and Hardouin. The work was published by his brother Sebastiano at Venice from 1728 to 1733 in twenty-three volumes. The last two were called "Apparatus primus" and "Apparatus secundus", containing the indexes, for which the collection was especially valuable. Other works of Coleti's were "Series episcoporum Cremonensium aucta" (Milan, 1749); "Monumenta ecclesiæ Venetæ S. Moisis" (1758) — this is valuable to the historian for the ancient documents it makes known. Coleti also annotated a manuscript of Maffei now preserved in the Biblioteca Vallicellana at Rome and bearing the title: "Supplementum Acacianum monumenta nunquam edita continens, quæ marchio Scipio Maffeius a vetustissimis Veronesis capituli codicibus eruit atque illustravit, editum Venetiis apud Sebastianum Coleti anno 1728". In addition to the above, two posthumous dissertations, said to have been published by his brothers, have been attributed to Coleti, but the only mention of them is found in an old catalogue.

VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath., s. v.; HURTER, Nomenclator; RICHARD AND GIRAUD, Biblioteca Sacra, s. v.; DANDOLO, La caduta della republica di Venezia (Venice, 1855).

LEO A. KELLY

St. Colette

(Diminutive of NICOLETTA, COLETTA).

Founder of Colettine Poor Clares (Clarisses), born 13 January 1381, at Corbie in Picardy, France; died at Ghent, 6 March, 1447. Her father, Robert Boellet, was the carpenter of the famous Benedictine Abbey of Corbie; her mother's name was Marguerite Moyon. Colette joined successively the Bequines, the Benedictines, and the Urbanist Poor Clares. Later she lived for a while as a recluse. Having resolved to reform the Poor Clares, she turned to the antipope, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna), then recognized by France as the rightful pope. Benedict allowed her to enter to the order of Poor Clares and empowered her by several Bulls, dated 1406, 1407, 1408, and 1412 to found new convents and complete the reform of the order. With the approval of the Countess of Geneva and the Franciscan Henri de la Beaume, her confessor and spiritual guide, Colette began her work at Beaume, in the Diocese of Geneva. She remained there but a short time and soon opened at Besancon her first convent in an almost abandoned house of Urbanist Poor Clares. Thence her reform spread to Auxonne (1410), to Poligny, to Ghent (1412), to Heidelberg (1444), to Amiens, etc. To the seventeen convents founded during her lifetime must be added another begun by her at Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine. She also inaugurated a reform among the Franciscan friars (the Coletani), not to be confounded with the Observants. These Coletani remained obedient to the authority of the provincial of the Franciscan convents, and never attained much importance even in France. In 1448 they had only thirteen convents, and together with other small branches of the Franciscan Order were suppressed in 1417 by Leo X. In addition to the strict rules of the Poor Clares, the Colettines follow their special constitutions sanctioned in 1434 by the General of the Franciscans, William of Casale, approved in 1448 by Nicholas V, in 1458 by Pius II, and in 1482 by Sixtus IV.

St. Colette was beatified 23 January, 1740, and canonized 24 May, 1807. She was not only a woman of sincere piety, but also intelligent and energetic, and exercised a remarkable moral power over all her associates. She was very austere and mortified in her life, for which God rewarded her by supernatural favours and the gift of miracles. For the convents reformed by her she prescribed extreme poverty, to go barefooted, and the observance of perpetual fast and abstinence. The Colettine Sisters are found to-day, outside of France, in Belgium, Germany, Spain, England, and the United States.

MICHAEL BIHL

John Colgan

Hagiographer and historian, b. in County Donegal, Ireland, about the beginning of the seventeenth century; d. probably in 1657. Having joined the Franciscan Order he was sent to study in the Irish Franciscan College of St. Anthony of Padua in Louvain. Here he is said to have acted as professor of theology for some time, but he soon forsook the professorial chair in order to devote himself to the Irish studies for which that college is justly famous. Father Hugh Ward (d. 1635) had projected a complete history of the Irish saints, and for this purpose had sent some of his brethren, notably Michael O'Clery, to Ireland to collect materials. Ward died before he could make any progress in his work, but the materials that had been gathered remained. Colgan, being a competent master of the Irish language, had thus ready at hand a collection of manuscripts unequalled in the department of Irish hagiology. He undertook a great work, to be published in six volumes, dealing with the whole range of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities. In 1645 he published at Louvain the third volume of this series (Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae, etc.), containing the lives of the Irish saints whose feasts occur in the calendar for the months of January, February, and March. The lives of the saints whose feasts occur in the succeeding months were to have been published in the last three volumes of the series. Wadding, in his "Annales Minorum", informs us that the volume dealing with the saints for April, May, and June was in the press at Colgan's death; this seems incorrect, since, if the work had been so far advanced, it would have been published by some one of the many competent colleagues who assisted Colgan.

The second volume of the series, entitled "Trias Thaumaturga", etc., appeared at Louvain in 1647. It deals with the three great national saints of Ireland, Patrick, Brigid, and Columbcille. In it are contained seven of the ancient lives of St. Patrick, five of St. Columba, and six of St. Brigid. For a long time the "Trias Thaumaturga" was nearly the only source of information on St. Patrick, and even since the Whitley Stokes edition of the "Vita Tripartita" (Rolls Series), Colgan's work cannot be dispensed with. It should be noted that Colgan gives a Latin version of the "Vita Tripartita" which represents a different text from that edited by Stokes; Colgan's manuscript seems to have entirely disappeared. Besides the "Lives" in the "Trias Thaumaturga", there are also contained in this volume many valuable "Appendices", dealing with the ecclesiastical antiquities of Ireland, and critical and topographical notes, which, though not always correct, are of invaluable assistance to the student. In 1655 he published at Antwerp a life of Duns Scotus, in which he undertook to prove that this great Franciscan doctor was born in Ireland, and not in Scotland, as was then frequently asserted. In the "Bibliotheca Franciscana" Colgan is said to have died in 1647, but this is evidently a mistake, as a note in his work on Duns Scotus proves clearly that he was alive in 1655.

Colgan's work on Irish hagiology is of undoubted value. Though unfortunately of very weak constitution, he was a man of great ability and industry, and with a sound critical sense. His knowledge of the Irish language enabled him to turn to good account the vast collection of manuscripts (now unfortunately for the greater part lost) which had been collected at the instigation of Ward, while his acquaintance with the traditions existing among the native Irish of his time, about the various names of persons and places, gave him an advantage over writers of the present day. It must be remembered, however, that Colgan, though a fluent Irish speaker, had not, and from the nature of things could not have, a knowledge of the grammatical forms of Old and Middle Irish. Hence his judgments about the dating of the manuscripts and about the meaning of certain difficult expressions ought not to be put forward as irreversible. In other words, Colgan should be judged by the criteria of his time; from this point of view his work on the ecclesiastical history of Ireland is unequalled. But his opinions are not decisive evidences of truth at the present day, especially when pitted against the view of the most skilled students of Old and Middle Irish grammar and texts. His principal works are: "Acta Sanctorum veteris et majoris Scotix seu Hibernix, Sanctorum Insulx, partim ex variis per Europam MS. Codicibus exscripta, partim ex antiquis monumentis et probatis Auctoribus eruta et congesta; omnia Notis et Appendicibus illustrata. Tomus primus qui de Sacris Hibernix Antiquitatibus est tertius, Januarium, Februarium et Martium complectens" (Louvain, 1645); "Triadis Thaumaturgx, seu Divorum Patricci Columbx et Brigidx, trium Veteris et Majoris Scotix, seu Hibernix, Sanctorum Insulx, communium Patronorum Acta, Tomus Secundus Sacrarum ejusdem Insulx Antiquitatum" (Louvain, 1647); "Tractatus de Vita, Patria, Scriptis Johannis Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis" (Antwerp, 1655). Besides these he left in manuscript "De Apostolatu Hibernorum inter exteras Gentes cum Dice Alphabetico de exteris santis" (852 pages); "De Sanctis in Anglia, Britannia, Aremorica, in reliqua Gallia, in Belgio" (1068 pages); "De Sanctis in Lotharingia et Burgundia, in Germania ad senestram et dexteram Rheni, in Italia" (920 pages). Some of these invaluable manuscripts, though eagerly sought for, have not yet been traced (see Gilbert, National MSS. of Ireland, London, 1884; or Doherty, op. cit. below, 81-82).

WADDING-SBARALEA, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum (ed. Rome, 1806; Quaracchi, 1908 sqq.); Bibliotheca Universa Franciscana (Madrid, 1732); WARE-HARRIS, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1746); DOHERTY, Inis-Owen and Tirconnell, being some account of Antiquities and Writers of the County of Donegal (Dublin, 1895), 49-52, 71-106; HYDE, A Literary History of Ireland (New York, 1902).

JAMES MACCAFFREY

Colima

(COLIMENSIS).

The city of Colima, the capital of the State of the same name in Mexico, is situated on the Colima River, at an altitude of 1400 feet, and was founded in the year 1522 by Gonzalo de Sandoval. Its population in 1900 was 20,698. The Diocese of Colima was erected by Leo XIII, 11 December, 1881, by the Constitution "Si principum". Before its erection as a diocese, Colima formed part of the Archdiocese of Guadalajara (Guadalaxara), of which it is now a suffragan. It includes all the State of Colima and the southern part of the State of Jalisco. The population in 1901 numbered 72,500, many of whom are Indians.

Gerarchia Catt. (Rome, 1908); Konversations-Lex. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903), s.v.

Frédéric-Louis Colin

Superior of the Sulpicians in Canada, b. at Bourges, France, in 1835; d. at Montreal, 27 November, 1902. After pursuing a course of scientific studies he entered the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice at Paris where he was ordained priest in 1859. Transferred to Canada in 1862 he at first took up parochial work; later he became successively professor of theology and director of the higher seminary at Montreal. From 1881 until his death he was superior of the priests of Saint-Sulpice in Canada. Colin distinguished himself both as an orator and as a man of action. Many of his sermons have been printed; among them are one to the papal zouaves returning from Rome (1871), and a funeral oration on Mgr. Bourget (1885). For twenty years Father Colin was the promoter in Montreal of higher education for the clergy and laity. For the clergy he founded the Canadian College at Rome (1885), intended to enable young Canadian priests to pursue a higher course of ecclesiastical studies by attending the Roman universities; besides this he established the seminary of philosophy at Montreal (1892).

For the benefit of laymen Colin established, despite many obstacles, the Laval University. Aided by Ferdinand Brunetière, on whom he exercised a salutary influence, he advocated the erection of a chair of French literature to be occupied by a lecturer from France, and he himself defrayed the costs. In this way he quickened interest in the French language and literature among the intelligent classes of Canada and introduced the custom of calling on French and Belgian specialists for the higher scientific and commercial instruction of young French-Canadians. To Father Colin is also due the practice of inviting a preacher from abroad to deliver the Lenten sermons at Notre-Dame of Montreal. His wise advice was also much sought for by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

L'Univers (Paris, 15 Jan., 1903); BRUNETIÈRE in Le Gaulois (30 Dec., 1902); Bulletin trimestriel des anciens élèves de Saint-Sulpice (February, 1903); Semaine religieuse de Montréal (6 and 13 Dec., 1902).

A. FOURNET

Jean-Claude-Marie Colin

A French priest, founder of the Marists, b. at Saint-Bonnet-le-Troncy, now in the Diocese of Lyons, 7 Aug., 1790; d. at Notre-Dame-de-la-Neylière (Rhône) 28 Feb., 1875. After his preliminary studies at St-Jodard, Alix, and Verrières, he entered the Grand-Séminaire de Saint-Irénée, at Lyons, and was ordained priest in 1816. The idea of a religious society dedicated to the Blessed Virgin originated with a group of seminarians at Saint-Irénée. Although the most retiring and modest of the group, Colin became the real founder. While serving as assistant pastor at Cerdon, then in the Diocese of Lyons, he drew up provisional rules which met the warm approval of such men as Bigex, Bishop of Pignerol, Bonald, Bishop of Puy, Frayssinous, minister of ecclesiastical affairs, etc. The town of Cerdon having passed to the newly reorganized Diocese of Belley, Colin obtained from its bishop, Mgr. Devie, permission to take a few companions and preach missions in the neglected parts of the diocese. Their number increased, and in spite of the opposition of the bishop, who wished to make the society a diocesan congregation, Colin obtained (1836) from Gregory XVI the canonical approbation of the Society of Mary as an order with simple vows. In the same year Father Colin was chosen superior general.

During the eighteen years of his administration (1836-1854) Colin showed great activity, organizing the different branches of his society, founding in France missionary houses and colleges, and above all sending to the various missions of Oceanica, which had been entrusted to the Marists, as many as seventy-four priests and forty-three brothers, several of whom gave up their lives in the attempt to convert the natives. In 1854 he resigned the office of superior general and retired to Notre-Dame-de-la-Neylière, where he spent the last twenty years of his life revising and completing the constitutions of the Society, impressing on them the spirit of the Blessed Virgin, a spirit of humility, self-denial, and unwavering loyalty to the Holy See, of which he was himself a perfect model. Two years before his death he had the joy of seeing the Constitutions of the Society of Mary definitively approved by the Holy See, 28 Feb., 1873. The cause of beatification of Father Colin is now (1908) before the Congregation of Rites.

Le Très-Révérend Père Colin (Lyons, 1898); Le Très-Révérend Père Colin (Lyons, 1900); Summarium processus ordinarii in causâ J. C. M. Colin (Rome, 1905).

J.F. SOLLIER

The Coliseum

The Coliseum, known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, commenced A.D. 72 by Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors, dedicated by Titus A.D. 80. The great structure rises in four stories, each story exhiting a different order of architecture; the first Doric, the second Ionic, the third Corinthian, the fourth composite. The material is the famous travertine. The site was originally a marshy hollow, bounded by the Caelian, the Oppian, the Velian and the Palatine Hills, which Nero had transformed into the fishpond of his Golden House. Its form is that of an ellipse 790 feet in circumference, its length 620, its width 525, and its height 157 feet. The arena, in which took place the gladiatorial combats (ludi gladiatori) and with the wild beasts, for which the Coliseum was erected, was of wood, covered with sand. Surrounding the arena was a low wall, surmounted by a railing high enough to protect the audience from danger of invasion by the furious, non-human contestants. As an additional security against this peril, guards patrolled the passageway between this stall and the podium, or marble terrace, on which were the seats of the senators, the members of the sacred colleges, and other privileged spectators. From the southern side of the podium projected the suggestum, or imperial gallery, for the accommodation of the emperor and his attendants. Next to these sat the Vestals. Back of the podium twenty tiers of seats were reserved for the three divisions of the equestrian order; the upper tiers of seats were occupied by the ordinary citizens. Last of all was a Corinthian colonnade in which the lower orders were accommodated with standing room only. The Coliseum, according to the "Chronographia" of 354, could contain 87,000 spectators. Professor Huelsen (quoted by Lanciani), however, has calculated that it will seat not more than 45,000 people. From the external cornice projected a circle of pine masts, from which awnings could readily be suspended over parts of the audience for the moment exposed to the sun's rays; the imperial gallery was covered with a special canopy. The arena was never shaded. Nothing is known of the architect of the Coliseum, although an inscription, afterwards shown to be a forgery, attributed its design to a Christian.

THE COLISEUM IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Although seriously damaged by two earthquakes in the fifth century, it is generally held that the Coliseum was practically intact in the eighth century when Bede wrote the well-known lines:

Lanciani attributes the collapse of the western portion of the shell to the earthquake of September, 1349, mentioned by Petrarch. Towards the end of the eleventh century it came into the hands of the Frangipani family, with whose palace it was connected by a series of constructions. During the temporary eclipse of the nobility in the fourteenth century, while the popes resided in Avignon, it became the property of the municipality of Rome (1312). The last shows seen in the Coliseum were given in the early part of the sixth century, one by Eutaricus Cilia, son-in-law of Theodoric, in 519, and a second in 523 by Anicius Maximus. The story of a bullfight in 1332, in which eighteen youths of the Roman nobility are said to have lost their lives, is apocryphal (Delehaye, L'Amphithéâtre Flavien, 5). In 1386 the municipality presented a third of the Coliseum to the "Compagnia del Salvatore ad sancta sanctorum" to be used as a hospital, which transaction is commemorated by a marble bas-relief bust of Our Saviour, between two candles, and the arms of the municipality, above the sixty-third and sixty-fifth arches. During the next four centuries the enormous mass of stone which had formed the western part of the structure served as a quarry for the Romans. Besides other buildings, four churches were erected in the vicinity from this material. One document attests that a single contractor in nine months of the year 1452 carried off 2522 cartloads of travertine from the Coliseum. This contractor was not the first, however, to utilize the great monument of ancient Rome as a quarry; a Brief of Eugenius IV (1431-47), cited by Lanciani, threatens dire penalties against those who would dare remove from the Coliseum even the smallest stone (vel minimum dicti colisei lapidem). The story of Cardinal Farnese who obtained permission from his uncle, Paul III (1534-49), to take from the Coliseum as much stone as he could remove in twelve hours is well known; his eminence had 4000 men ready to take advantage of the privilege on the day appointed. But a new tradition, which gradually took hold of the public mind during the seventeenth century, put an end to this vandalism, and effectually aided in preserving the most important existing monument of imperial Rome.

THE COLISEUM AND THE MARTYRS

Pope St. Pius (1566-72) is said to have recommended persons desirous of obtaining relics to procure some sand from the arena of the Coliseum, which, the pope declared, was impregnated with the blood of martyrs. The opinion of the saintly pontiff, however, does not seem to have been shared by his contemporaries. The practical Sixtus V (1585-90) was only prevented by death from converting the Coliseum into a manufactory of woollen goods. In 1671 Cardinal Altieri regarded so little the Coliseum as a place consecrated by the blood of Christian martyrs that he authorized its use for bullfights. Nevertheless from the middle of the seventeenth century the conviction attributed to St. Pius V gradually came to be shared by the Romans. A writer named Martinelli, in a work published in 1653, put the Coliseum at the head of a places sacred to the martyrs. Cardinal Carpegna (d. 1679) was accustomed to stop his carriage when passing by the Coliseum and make a commemoration of the martyrs. But it was the act of Cardinal Altieri, referred to above, which indirectly effected a general change of public opinion in this regard. A pious personage, Carlo Tomassi by name, aroused by what he regarded as desecration, published a pamphlet calling attention to the sanctity of the Coliseum and protesting against the intented profanation authorized by Altieri. The pamphlet was so completely successful that four years later, the jubilee year of 1675, the exterior arcades were closed by order of Clement X; from this time the Coliseum became a sanctuary. At the instance of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Benedict XIV (1740-58) erected Stations of the Cross in the Coliseum, which remained until February, 1874, when they were removed by order of Commendatore Rosa. St. Benedict Joseph Labre (d. 1783) passed a life of austere devotion, living on alms, within the walls of the Coliseum. "Pius VII in 1805, Leo XII in 1825, Gregory XVI in 1845, and Pius IX in 1852, contributed liberally to save the amphitheatre from further degradation, by supporting the fallen portions with great buttresses" (Lanciani). Thus at a moment when the Coliseum stood in grave danger of demolition it was saved by the pious belief which placed it in the category of monuments dearest to Christians, the monuments of the early martyrs. Yet, after an exhaustive examination of the documents in the case, the learned Bollandist, Father Delehave, S.J., arrives at the conclusion that there are no historical grounds for so regarding it (op. cit.). In the Middle Ages, for example, when the sanctuaries of the martyrs were looked upon with so great veneration, the Coliseum was completely neglected; its name never occurs in the itineraries, or guide-books, compiler for the use of pilgrims to the Eternal City. The "Mirabilia Romae", the first manuscripts of which date from the twelfth century, cites among the places mentioned in the "Passions" of the martyrs the Circus Flaminius ad pontem Judaeorum, but in this sense makes no allusion to the Coliseum. We have seen how for more than a century it served as a stronghold of the Frangipani family; such a desecration would have been impossible had it been popularly regarded as a shrine consecrated by the blood, not merely of innumerable martyrs, but even of one hero of the Faith. The intervention of Eugenius IV was based altogether on patriotism; as an Italian the pope could not look on passively while a great memorial of Rome's past was being destroyed. "Nam demoliri urbis monumenta nihil aliud est quam ipsius urbis et totius orbis excellentiam diminuere."

Thus in the Middle Ages no tradition existed in Rome which associated the martyrs in any way with the Coliseum; it was only in the seventeenth century and in the manner indicated, that it came to he regarded with veneration as a scene of early Christian heroism. Indeed, little attention was paid by the Christians of the first age to the actual place of a martyr's sufferings; the sand stained with his blood was, when possible gathered up and treasured as a precious relic, but that was all. The devotion of the Christian body centred wholly around the place where the martyr was interred. Father Delehaye calls attention to the fact that although we know from trust-worthy historical sources of the execution of Christians in the garden of Nero, yet popular tradition preserved no recollection of all event so memorable (op. cit., 37). The Acts of Roman Martyrs, it is true, contain indications as to the places where various martyrs suffered: in amphitheatro, in Tellure, etc. But these Acts are often merely pious legends of the fifth, sixth, and following centuries built up by unknown writers on a feast reliable historical facts. The decree formerly attributed to Pope Gelasius (492-96) bears witness to the slight consideration in which this class of literature was held in the Roman Church; to read it in the churches was forbidden, and it was attributed to unknown writers, wholly unqualified for their self-imposed task (secundum antiquam consuetudinem, leguntur, quia et eorum qui conscripsere nomina penitus ignorantur, et ab infidelibus et idiotis superflua aut minus apta quam rei ordo fuerit esse putantur.-- Thiel. Epist. Rom. Pont., I, 458). The evidence, therefore, which we possess in the Roman Acts in favour of certain martyrs suffering in the Coliseum is, for these reasons among others, regarded by Father Delehaye as inconclusive. He does not deny that there may have been martyrs who suffered in the Coliseum, but we know nothing on the subject one way or the other. (Je ne veux pas nier qu'il y ait eu des martyrs de l'amphithéâtre Flavien; mais nous ne savons pas non plus s'il y en a eu, et en tout cas leurs noms nous sont inconnus.--Op. cit., 37.) It is, of course, probable enough that some of the Christians condemned ad bestias suffered in the Coliseum, but there is just as rnuch reason to suppose that they met their death in one of the other places dedicated to the cruel amusements of imperial Rome; for instance, in the Circus Flaminius, the Gaianum, the Circus of Hadrian, the Amphitheatrum Castrense, and the Stadium of Domitian. Even as regards St. Ignatius of Antioch, the evidence that he was martyred in the Coliseum is far from decisive, the terms employed by St. John Chrysostom and Evagrius in reference to this matter convey no precise meaning (Delehaye, op. cit. 43). The same is true of the term used by Theodoret in reference to the death of St. Telemachus, who sacrificed his life to put an end to the bloody spectacles which, as late as the early fifth century, took place in Rome. There is no reason to doubt the fact of the heroic death of St. Telemachus, but there is, on the other hand, no clear proof that its scene was the Coliseum. Theodoret, the only writer who records the incident, says that it happened eis to stadio (in the stadium), a different place from the Coliseum.

MAURICE M. HASSET

Diego Collado

A missionary, born in the latter part of the sixteenth century at Miajadas, in the province of Estremadura, Spain. He entered the Dominican Order at Salamanca about 1600, and in 1619 went to Japan, where the Christians were suffering persecution. After the martyrdom of Luis Flóres, a fellow-Dominican, in 1622, Collado repaired to Rome, and later to Spain, in the interest of Oriental missions. He obtained important concessions, though not without incuring some animosity. Bearing Apostolic and royal letters, he returned to the Orient in 1635. The following year he endeavoured to establish in the Philippines an independent convent devoted solely to the Chinese and Japanese missions, but, owing to the opposition of the Spanish civil authorities, his effort was unsuccessful. Recalled to Spain, he was shipwrecked, in1638, on his way to Manila. He could have saved himself, but he remained with the unfortunates among his fellow-voyagers, hearing their confessions and preparing them for death. The following are his more important writings: "Ars grammatica japonicae linguae" (Rome, 1631, 1632); "Dictionarium sive thesauri linguae japonicae compendium" (Rome, 1632); "Modus confitendi et examinandi paenitentem japonensem formula suamet lingua japonica", (Rome 1631, 1632); " Formula protestandae fidei", (Rome); "Historia eclesiástica de los sucesos de la cristianidad del Japón desde el año de MDCII, que entró en él la orden de predicadores hasta el de MDCXXI por el P. Hiacintho Orfanel, anadida hasta el fin del ano MDCXXII por el Padre Fray Diego Collado" (Madrid, 1632, 1633); "Dictionarium linguae sinensis cum explicatione latina et hispanica charactere sinensi et latino" (Rome, 1632).

JOHN R. VOLZ

Collect

The name now used only for short prayers before the Epistle in the Mass, which occur again at Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. The word collecta corresponds to the Greek synaxis. It is a noun, a late form for collectio (so missa for missio, oblata for oblatio, ascensa, in the Gelasian Sacramentary, for ascensio, etc.). The original meaning seems to have been this: it was used for the service held at a certain church on the days when there was a station somewhere else. The people gathered together and became a "collection" at this first church; after certain prayers had been said they went in procession to the station-church. Just before they started the celebrant said a prayer, the oratio ad collectam (ad collectionem populi); the name would then be the same as oratio super populum, a title that still remains in our Missal, in Lent for instance after the Post-Communion. This prayer, the collect, would be repeated at the beginning of the Mass at the station itself (Bona, Rer. liturg., II, 5). Later writers find other meanings for the name. Innocent III says that in this prayer the priest collects together the prayers of all the people (De Sacr. altaris myst., II, 27; see also Benedict XIV, De SS. Missæ sacr., II, 5). The Secret and Post-Communion are also collects, formed on the same model as the one before the Epistle. Now the name is only used for the first of the three. Originally there was only one collect (and one Secret and Post-Communion) for each Mass. The older sacramentaries never provide more than one. Amalarius of Metz (d. 857) says (De officiis eccl., in P.L., CV, 985 sqq.) that in his time some priests began to say more than one collect, but that at Rome only one was used. Micrologus [De eccl. observ., probably by Bernold of Constance (d.1100), in P.L., CLI, 973 sqq.] defends the old custom and says that "one Prayer should be said, as one Epistle and one Gospel". However, the number of collects was multiplied till gradually our present rule was evolved.

The way in which our collects are now said at Mass is the fragment of a more elaborate rite. Of this longer rite we still have a vestige on Good Friday. The celebrant, after greeting the people (Dominus vobiscum), invited them to pray for some intention: Oremus, dilectissimi nobis, etc. The deacon said: Flectamus genua, and all knelt for a time in silent prayer. The subdeacon then told them to stand up again (Levate), and, all standing, the celebrant closed the private prayers with the short form that is the collect. Of this rite -- except on Good Friday -- the shortening of the Mass, which has affected all its parts, has only left the greeting Oremus and the collect itself. Here, as always, it is in Holy Week that we find the older form. It should be noted, then, that the Oremus did not refer immediately to the collect, but rather to the silent prayer that went before it. This also explains the shortness of the older collects. They are not the prayer itself, but its conclusion. One short sentence summed up the petitions of the people. It is only since the original meaning of the collect has been forgotten that it has become itself a long petition with various references and clauses (compare the collects for the Sundays after Pentecost with those for the modern feasts). On all feast-days the collect naturally contains a reference to the event whose memory we celebrate. Its preparation is the kissing of the altar and the Dominus vobiscum. Before inviting the people to make this prayer the celebrant greets them, and, before turning his back to the altar in order to do so, he salutes it in the usual way by kissing it. The form Dominus vobiscum is the common greeting in the West. It occurs in the Gallican, Milanese, and Mozarabic Liturgies under the form: Dominus sit semper vobiscum. Germanus of Paris notes it as the priest's (not bishop's) greeting (P.L., LXXVII, 89). It is taken from the Bible. When Booze came from Bethlehem he said, "The Spirit be with you", to the reapers (Ruth, ii, 4), and St. Gabriel used the same form to Our Lady at the Annunciation (Luke, i, 28; cf. II Thess., iii, 16). A bishop here says, Pax vobis, unless the Mass has no Gloria, in which case his greeting is the same as that of the priest (Ritus celebr., V, I). This distinction is as old as the tenth century (Ordo Rom., XIV, 79, notes it). The Pax is a joyful and solemn greeting to be left out on days of penance. Its connection with the Gloria, that has just gone before (et in terra pax hominibus), is obvious. The greeting of peace (eirene pasin) is the common one in the Eastern liturgies. In either case the answer is: Et cum spiritu tuo. This is a Hebraism that occurs constantly in both the Old and the New Testament. "Thy spirit" simply means "thee" (Cf. e.g. Dan., iii, 86; Gal., vi, 18; Phil., iv, 23; Philem., 25). Nefesh (Heb.), Nafs (Ar.), with a pronominal suffix, in all Semitic languages means simply the person in question. The Eastern liturgies have the same answer, kai meta tou pneumatos sou (and with thy spirit), as in the Apostolic Constitutions (Brightman, Eastern Lit. 3, 13), or kai to pneumati sou (ibid., 49, 137, etc.).

At the Dominus vobiscum the celebrant, facing the people, extends and then again joins his hands. It is here a gesture of greeting. With folded hands he turns back to the altar and goes to the Missal at the Epistle side. Here, again extending and joining the hands and bowing towards the cross, he sings or says Oremus, and then, with uplifted hands (not above the shoulder, Ritus Celebr., V, 1), goes on at once with the collect or collects. The present rule about the collects is this: on doubles only one collect is said (that of the feast), unless any other feast be commemorated, or the pope or bishop order an oratio imperata. The imperata is, moreover, omitted on doubles of the first class, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, the eves of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday, in Requiems, and solemn votive Masses. On doubles of the second class it is left out in high and sung Masses, and may be said at the others or not, at the celebrant's discretion. For a very grave cause an imperata may be ordered to be said always, even on these occasions. It always comes last (De Herdt, I, 72). The collect of the Blessed Sacrament, to be said when it is exposed, and that for the pope or bishop on the anniversary of their election, coronation, or consecration, are particular cases of imperatæ. The rules for commemoration of feasts, octaves, ember days, and ferias of Advent and Lent are given in the rubrics of the Missal (Rubr. Gen., VII; cf. De Herdt, I, 70-71). On semi-doubles, Sundays, and days within an octave, three collects must be said; but on Passion Sunday, on Sundays within an octave and throughout the octaves of Easter and Whitsunday there are only two (Rubr. Gen., IX; De Herdt, I, 75, where the rules for these collects will found). But in these cases the number may be greater, if there are commemorations. On simples, ferias, and in Requiems and (not solemn) votive Masses, the celebrant may also add collects, as he chooses, provided the total number be an uneven one and do not exceed seven (Rubr. Gen., IX, 12; De Herdt, I, 83).

The rule about the uneven numbers, on which the S. Congr. Rit, has insisted several times (2 December, 1684; 2 September, 1741; 30 June, 1896), is a curious one. The limit of seven prevents the Mass from being too long. In any case the collect of the day always comes first. It has Oremus before it and the long conclusion (Per Dominum, etc.). The second collect has a second Oremus, and all that follow are joined together without intermediate ending nor Oremus till the last, which again has the long conclusion. This separates the collect of the day from the others and gives it a special dignity, as a remnant of the old principle that it alone should be said. The conclusions of the collects vary according to their form and references (Rubr. Gen., IX, 17). The people (choir or server answer Amen. During the conclusions the celebrant folds his hands and bows towards the cross at the words Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. It should be noted that the great majority of the collects are addressed to God the Father (so all the old ones; the common form is to begin: Deus, qui); a few later ones (as on Corpus Christi, for example) are addressed to God the Son, none to the Holy Ghost. At low Mass collects are said aloud so that they can be heard by the people, at high (or sung) Mass they are sung to the festive tone on doubles, semi-doubles, and Sundays. On simples, ferias, and in Masses for the dead, they have the simple ferial tone (entirely on one note, fa). The rules of the tones, with examples, are in the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" I, xxvii. At high Mass the deacon and subdeacon stand in a straight line behind the celebrant (the deacon on the top step, the subdeacon in plano) with joined hands. At the collects, in high Mass, the people should stand. This is the old position for public prayer; originally the subdeacon explicitly told them to do so (Levate). The custom of standing during the collects, long neglected, is now being happily revived. At low Mass they kneel all the time except during the Gospel (Rubr. Gen., XVII, 2).

"Rubricæ generales Missalis," VII, IX, XVI, XVII; "Ritus celebrandi," V"; Cæremoniale Episcoporum," I, xxvii; BENEDICT XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacrificio", II, v; GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), II §39, 374-399. See also the sacramentaries, texts, and commentaries quoted in the article Canon of the Mass.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Collectarium

(Sometimes COLLECTARIUS, COLLECTANEUM, ORATIONALE, CAPITULARE), the book which contains the Collects. In the Proprium de Tempore of the Roman Missal the title Statio, with the name of some saint or mystery, is frequently prefixed to the Introit of the Mass. It signifies that in early times, probably down to the fourteenth century, the clergy and people celebrated on those days the Divine mysteries in the churches dedicated in honour of that saint or mystery. Before going in procession to the statio they assembled in some nearby church to receive the pontiff, who recited a prayer which was called the Collect. This name was given to the prayer either because it was recited for the assembled people, or because it contained the sum and substance of all favours asked by the pontiff for himself and the people, or because in an abridged form it represented the spirit and fruit of the feast or mystery. In course of time it was used to signify the prayers, proper, votive, or prescribed by the ecclesiastical superiors (imperatæ), recited before the Epistle, as well as the Secrets and the Post-Communions. Later it was applied to the prayers said at Divine Office or any liturgical service.

ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776), I; BERNARD, Cours de Liturgie Romaine: La Messe (Paris, 1898), II; VAN DER STAPPEN, Sacra Liturgia (Mechlin, 1902), II; CARPO, Compendiosa Bibliotheca Liturgica (Bologna, 1879); GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, tr. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1903).

A.J. SCHULTE

Collections

The offerings of the faithful in their special relation to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will claim fuller and more general treatment under Offertory and Mass (Pt. B, §(1), (c); text p. 20). We will confine ourselves here to the particular development which took the form of a contribution in money, corresponding particularly to what is conveyed by the French word quête. Of collections for general church purposes we find mention already in the days of St. Paul, for we read in I Cor., xvi, 1-2: "Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made." This seems to imply that on every Sunday (the first day of the week) contributions were made, probably when the faithful assembled for "the breaking of bread" (Acts, xx, 7), and that then contributions were put by, if not required for some immediate and local need, e. g. the relief of the poor, in order that St. Paul might assign them for the use of other more destitute churches at a distance (cf. II Cor., viii and ix). How far such offerings were allocated to the support of the clergy and how far to the poor there is nothing to tell us, but it is plain that as a matter of principle the claims both of the clergy and of the poor were recognized from the very first. (For the clergy see I Cor., ix, 8-11; II Thess., iii, 8; I Tim., v, 17-18; and for the poor see Acts, iv, 34-35, vi, 1, xi, 29-30; I Tim., v, 16, etc.) Again there can be no doubt that from an early date such alms were administered according to some organized system. The very institution of deacons and deaconesses proves this, and we can appeal to the existence in certain places, for example at Jerusalem, of a roll (breve ecclesiasticum, see the recently recovered "Life of St. Melania", § 35) bearing the names of those in receipt of relief. Gregory of Tours gives the name of matricularii (De Mirac. B. Martin., iii, 22) to those who were entered on this roll. Speaking generally, the allocation of all offerings was recognized as belonging to the bishop (i. e. in the period before the modern system of parishes and parish priests had evolved itself with any clearness), and the rule was formally enunciated in the West that all offerings were to be divided by the bishop into four parts: the first for the clergy, the second for the poor, the third for the fabric and up-keep of the churches, and the last part for the bishop himself, that he might the better exercise the hospitality which was expected of him. This arrangement seems to date back at least to the time of Pope Simplicius (475), and a hundred years later it is stated by Pope Gregory the Great in the following form when he was consulted by St. Augustine about the English Church which he had just founded: "It is the custom of the Apostolic See to deliver to ordained bishops precepts that of every oblation which is made there ought to be four portions, one, to wit, for the bishop and his household, on account of hospitality and entertainment, another for the clergy, a third for the poor, a fourth for the repairing of churches" (Bede, Hist. Eccles., I, xxvi).

At a latter date we find some modification of this rule for in the Capitularies of Louis the Pious a third of the offerings are assigned to the clergy and two-thirds to the poor in more prosperous districts, while a half is to be given to each in poorer ones. During all this earlier period offereings in money do not seem to have been connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but they were either put into an alms-box permanently set up in the church or they were given in collections made on certain specified occasions. With regard to the former Tertullian already speaks (Apol., xxxix, Migne, P. L., I, 470) of "some sort of chest" which stood in the church and to which the faithful contributed without compulstion. It seems to have been commonly called gazophylacium or corbona (Cyprian, "De op. et eleemos."; Jerome, Ep. xxvii, 14). The collections on the other hand probably took place on days of which notice was given beforehand. Apart from a mention in the "Apology" of Justin Martyr (I, lxvii), from which we should suppose that a collection was made every Sunday, our principal source of information is the series of six sermons "De Collectis", delivered by St. Leo the Great in different years of his pontificate (Migne, P. L., LIV, 158-168). All these, according to the brothers Bullerini, probably have reference to a collection annually made on 6 July, on which day in pagan times certain games were held in honour of Apollo, at which a collection took place. The Church seems to have continued the custom and converted it into an occastion of almsgiving for pious purposes upon the octave day of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. It may be noted that both Tertullian (De Jejun., xiii, Migne, P. L., II, 972) and St. Leo seem to regard such contributions of money as a form of mortification, and consequently sanctification, closely connected with fasting. That similar collections were everywhere common in the Early Church and that considerable pressure was sometimes brought to bear to extort contributions we learn from a letter of St. Gregory the Great (Migne, P. L., LXXVII, 1060).

As already noted, these methods of gathering alms seem to have had nothing directly to do with the liturgy. The offerings which were invariably made by the faithful during the Holy Sacrifice were long confined to simple bread and wine, or at least to such things as wax, candles, oil, or incense which had a direct relation to the Divine service. According to the so-called Apostolic Canons (see APOSTOLIC CANONS) other forms of produce which might be offered for the support of the clefgy were to be taken to the residence of the bishop, where he lived a sort of community life with his priests (See Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, I, 564). However, the bread and wine which were brought tot he altar at the Offertory of the Mass were commonly presented in quantities far in excess of what was needed for the Holy Sacrifice, and they thus formed, and were intended to form, a substantial contribution towards the maintenance of those who served in the sanctuary. Various enactments were passed during the Carlovingian period with the object of urging the people to remain faithful to this practice, but it seems gradually to have died out, save in certain functions of solemnity, e. g. the Mass celebrated at the consecration of a bishop, when two loaves and two small casks of wine are presented to the celebrant at the Offertory. On the other hand, this oblation of bread and wine seems to have been replaced in many localities by a contribution in money. At what period the substitution began is not quite clear. Some have thought that a trace of this practice is to be recognized as early as St. Isidore of Seville (595) who speaks of the archdeacon "receiving the money collected from the communion" (Ep. ad Leudof., xii). A less ambiguous example may be found in a letter of St. Peter Damian (c. 1050) where there is mention of gold coins being offered by the wives of certain princes at his Mass (Migne, P. L., CXLIV, 360). In any case it is certain that from the twelfth to the fifteenth century a money offering, known in England as the "mass-penny", was commonly made at the Offertory all over the Western Church. Kings and personages of high rank often had a special coin which they presented at Mass each day and then redeemed it afterwards for a specified sum. Chaucer says of his Pardoner:–

The offering was voluntarily, and each one brought what he had to give to the altar-rail. Burckard at the beginning of the sixteenth century gives this direction: "If there be any who wish to offer, the celebrant comes to the epistle corner and there standing bareheaded with his left side turned towards the altar, he removes the maniple from his left arm and taking it in his right hand, he presents the end of it to kiss to those who offer, saying to each: 'May thy sacrifice be acceptable to God Almighty', or 'Mayst thou receive a hundredfold and possess eternal life'." This rubric was not retained in the first official and authoritative edition of the Roman Missal, printed in 1570. Possibly the struggle for precedence in going up to make the offering, of which we read in Chaucer, tended to bring this method of contributing into disfavour and led to the carrying round of an alms-dish or bag from bench to bench as is commonly done at present. Collections for special objects, e. g. the building of a church, the construction of a bridge, the relief of certain cases of distress, etc. have at all times been common in the Church, and during the Middle Ages the people were constantly stimulated to give more generously to particular funds for pious purposes, e. g. the Crusades, by the grant of special Indulgences. These grants of Indulgence were often entrusted to preachers of note ("Pardoners") who carried them from town to town, collecting money and using their eloquence to recommend the good work in question and to enhance the spiritual privileges attached to it. This led to many abuses. The Council of Trent frankly recognized them and abolished all grants of Indulgence which were conditional upon a pecuniary contribution towards a specified object. Other collections during the Middle Ages were associated with special objects of piety–for example, noteworthy shrines, statues, or relics. Some few specimens still remain of stone alms-boxes joined to a bracket upon which some statue formerly stood, or united to Easter sepulchres, shrines, etc. One collection, that for the Holy Places, was commonly associated with the creeping to the Cross on Good Fridays, as it still is to-day.

The strain put upon the charity of the lay-folk in the Middle Ages by the large number of mendicant orders was often severely felt. Some remedy was provided by confining the appeals of those who solicited alms to certain assigned districts. The mendicants so licensed were in England often known as "limitours". A like difficulty is not unfamiliar in our own day, and the principle has consequently been recognized that a bishop has a right to prohibit strangers from collecting alms in his diocese without authorization. Although it is not always easy to exercise adequate control over these appeals, a certain check may be put upon importunate ecclesiastics by withholding permission to say Mass in the diocese. This method of exercising pressure, to be followed by complaint to the Congregation of Propaganda in case such prohibitions are neglected, is indicated in a strongly worded decree drawn up by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (n. 295). Similar regulations requiring that the bishop's authorization should be obtained before strangers can be allowed to collect money for charitable purposes in the diocese also prevail in England. Restrictions are further commonly imposed, eiher by synodal decrees or by the command of the bishop, upon certain methods of collecting money which may be judged according to local circumstances to be likely to give scandal or to be attended with danger to souls. The sometimes intricate and delicate questions arising from the collection of money by religious when entrusted with quasi-parochial functions have been legislated for in the Apostolic Constitution "Romanos Pontifices" of 8 May, 1881.

     There is a short article s. v. Collecten in the Kirchenlexikon, but there seems to be no one source of information which brings together in moderate compass the facts discussed above. The reader may, however, be referred for various points to different treatises, of which the following are the most noteworthy: Fourneret in Dict. de théol. cath. (1905), s. v. Biens ecclesiastiques; Thalhofer, Liturgik (Freiburg, 1893), Vol. II, Pt. I; Gihr, The Mass (tr. Freiburg, 1902), 496-514; Haddan, Scudamore, and Armfield in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. vv. Alms; Oblations; Poor; Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica (London, 1876), 346 sq.; Bondroit, De Capacitate Possidendi Ecclesiæ (Louvain, 1900); Biederlack, De Bonis Ecclesiæ Temporalibus (Innsbruck, 1892); Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1908), III, 134 sq.; Laurentius, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1908), 631-657.

Herbert Thurston

Collectivism

The term Collectivism is sometimes employed as a substitute for socialism. It is of later origin, and is somewhat more precise in use and content. Socialism, while sufficiently definite in the minds of those who have a right to class themselves as socialists, is frequently employed in a loose way by others. The single-tax theory government ownership of public utilities such as railways and telegraphs, stricter public regulation of industry, and even moderate measures of social reform, are sometimes called socialism by individuals and newspapers. Collectivism is scarcely ever used except to designate that system of industry in which the material agents of production may be earned and managed by the public, the collectivity. And it usually indicates merely the economic side of socialism, without reference to any philosophical, psychological, ethical, or historical assumptions. Socialism means primarily an ideal industrial order as just described, but it is also quite properly used to characterize the entire idealogical foundation upon which International or Marxian socialists build as well as the concrete movement that is actively strirving the realization of this ideal order. Hence economic determinism, the class struggle and the catastrophic concentration of industry would be called socialist rather than collectivist theories. Notwithstanding these advantages of definiteness, the word collectivism has not been widely employed, even in France and Belgium; nor does it promise to supplant the older term in the future.

While collectivism implies the substitution of collective for private property in the means of production, it is susceptible of considerable diversity in its application throughout the realm of industry. One of the most thoroughgoing of the German socialists, Karl Kautsky, in his forecast of what might be expected to happen the day after the industrial revolution, suggests that when the State has taken a possession of the capitalistic industries it could sell a portion of them to the labourers who work them, another portion to co-operative associations, another to muncipalities, and still another to provincial subdivisions of the nation (in America, the several States). All industries that had already become monopolized by the nation, and the national form of industry would probably be the predominant one ultimately. Land would be collectively owned, but not always collectively operated. According to Kautsky, the small non-capitalistic farms (embracing by far the greater part of all agricultural land) might well remain in the hands of individual farmers. While not owning the ground that he tilled, and while -- in all probability -- paying rent to the State in proportion to the value of the land, the small farmer would own and manage his agricultural business, the machinery, seeds, horses etc., that he used, and the product that he produced. Thus his position would approximate that of a farmer under the single-tax system. He would not be a wage-receiver in the employ of State. Finally there are certain non-agricultural small industries which could continue to be privately owned and managed. This is especially true of those in which hand labour predominates, and which produce for immediate consumption, for example, the work of barbers, artists, custom-tailors and dressmakers. Since the supreme aim of collectivism is the abolition of that capitalistic regime which enables one man or one corporation arbitrarily to exploit the labour and the necessities of many men, it obviously does not -- in theory at least -- imply equal compensation for all individuals, nor the destruction of individual initiative, nor the establishment of a bureaucratic despotisrn. Hence the theoretical possibility of different rates of pay, of many and diverse industrial units, of a considerable member of small industries, and of private property in the goods that minister to immediate enjoyment. As the American socialist John spargo puts it, "we want social ownership only of those things which cannot be controlled by private owners except as means of exploiting the labour of others and making them bondsmen" (Capitalist and Labor. etc., 120). As in the matter of the ownership and operation of the means of production, so with regard to the ultimate directive power, the governmental functions, collectivism does not theoretically necessitate the depotic supremacy of a highly centralized State. Indeed, the Continental socialists, who detest the military governments under which they live, favour decentralization rather than the opposite; hence so many of them lay stress upon the development of the local political unit, and the inevitable increase of provincial and municipal functions in the collectivist State. Their ideal, and the ideal of collectivists generally, is a State organized on industrial lines, in which each industry whether local or national, and its workers will be substantially autonomous, and in which government of persons will be replaced by an administration of things.

From this outline of what may be regarded as the prevailing theory of collectivism, it appears that many of the arguments against collectivism have lost something of their former strength and pertinency. This is particularly true of those objections which assume a completely centralized management of industry, equal compensation for all workers, and the entire absence of individual initiative in production. On the other hand, the very diversity of industrial direction, the vast scope given to local and provincial autonomy, and the very small part assigned to coercive and repressive activity in the collectivist system would undoubtedly prove fatal to its efficiency and stability. To suppose that the local industrial unit, say, the municipal gas works, or the local branch of the national shoe manufacture, could be operated effectively on a basis of complete industrial democracy, requires a faith surpassing that of children. The workers would lack the incentive to hard work that comes from fear of discharge, would be under constant temptation to assume that they were more active and more efficient than their equally paid fellows in other workshops of the same class. Hence sufficient centralization to place the of industry outside of the local unit or branch would seem to be indispensable. This means a combination of industrial and political power that could easily put an end to freedom of action, speech, and writing. Since the form of authority would be democratic, the people could no doubt vote such a government out of power; but in the concrete the people means the majority, and a majority might continue for a long series of years to impose intolerable conditions on a minority almost equal in numbers. For collectivism there seems to be no middle ground between inefficiency and despotism. An industrial system which would increase rather than lessen social ills is obviously contrary to the interests of morality and religion. Furthermore, any collectivist regime which should seize private land or capital without compensation is condemned by Catholic doctrine concerning the lawfulness of private ownership and unlawfulness of theft. Setting aside these questions of feasibility and compensation are we obliged to say, or permitted to say, that collectivism as described in this article has formally been condemned by the Catholic Church? In the Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (On the condition of labour), Pope Leo XIII clearly denounced those extreme forms of socialism and communism which aim at the abolition of all or practically all private property. Perhaps the nearest approach to an official pronouncement on the subject of essential and purely economic collectivism is Holy Father declares that man's welfare demands private ownership of "stable possessions" and of "lucrative property". (See SOCIALISM.)

JOHN A. RYAN

Colle di Val d'Elsa

(Collis Hetruscus)

A Diocese of (Collensis), suffragan to Florence. Colle is situated in the province of Siena, Tuscany, on the top of the lofty hill which overlooks the River Elsa. It is said to have been built by the inhabitants of Gracchiano, who had suffered greatly in the frequent wars between Forence and Siena. The Gospel is supposed to have been preached there by St. Martial, a reputed disciple of St. Peter. Colle had at first a collegiate church, exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of the neighbouring bishop, and widely known through the merits of its archpriest, St. Albert, who flourished about 1202. In 1598, Clement VIII, at the request of Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany erected the Diocese of Colle, the first bishop being Usimbardo Usimbardi. The Diocese has 72 parishes, 117 churches and chapels, 115 secular and 20 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men and 3 of women.

U. BENIGNI

College

(Fr. collège, It. collegio, Sp. colegio)

The word college, from the Latin collegium, originally signified a community, a corporation, an organized society, a body of colleagues, or a society of persons engaged in some common pursuit. From ancient times there existed in Rome corporations called collegia, with various ends and objects. Thus the guilds of the artisans were known as collegia or sodalica; in other collegia persons associated together for some special religious worship, or for the purpose of mutual assistance. This original meaning of the word college is preserved in some modern corporations, as the College of Physicians, or the College of Surgeons (London, Edinburgh). There were in Rome other, more official bodies which bore the title collegium, as the Collegium tribunorum, Collegium augurum, Collegium pontificum, etc. In a similar sense the word is now used in such terms as the College of Cardinals (or the Sacred College), the College of Electors, the College of Justice (in Scotland), the College of Heralds (in England).

From the fourteenth century on the word college meant in particular "a community or corporation of secular clergy living together on a foundation for religious service". The church supported on this endowment was called a collegiate church, because the ecclesiastical services and solemnities were performed by a college, i. e. a body or staff of clergymen, consisting of a provost, or dean, canons, etc.; later, the term "collegiate" or "college church" was usually restricted to a church connected with a large educational institution. Some of these institutions, besides carrying out the Divine service in their church, were required to take charge of an almshouse, or a hospital, or some educational establishment. It is here that we find the word college introduced in connexion with education, a meaning which was to become the most prominent during succeeding centuries. It seems that in the English universities the term was first applied to the foundations of the so-called second period, typified by New College, Oxford, 1379; from these the name gradually spread to the earlier foundations (Merton, Balliol) which originally were designated by the term aula or domus; then it was taken by the foundations of the third period, the colleges of the Renaissance. As used in educational history, college may be defined, in general, as "a society of scholars formed for the purposes of study or instruction"; and in particular as "a self-governing corporation, either independent of a university, or in connexion with a university, as the College of the Sorbonne in the ancient University of Paris, and the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge". In some instances, where in a university only a single college was founded or survived, the terms "college" and "university" are co-extensive and interchangeable. This is the case in Scotland and, to a great extent, in the United States. Although in the United States many small institutions claim the ambitious title of university, it is more appropriate to apply this term to those institutions which have several distinct faculties for professional study and thus resemble the universities of Europe. They differ, however, from the continental universities in one important point, namely, in the undergraduate department which is connected with the university proper. In some places, as in Harvard, the term "college" is now in a special sense applied to the undergraduate school. This is the most common and most proper acceptation of the term: an institution of higher learning of a general, not professional, character, where after a regular course of study the degree of Bachelor of Arts, or, in recent years, some equivalent degree, e. g. Bachelor of Philosophy, or Bachelor of Science, is given. (See ARTS, BACHELOR OF, and DEGREES, ACADEMIC.) It is this meaning of college which will be treated in this article; all professional schools called colleges are excluded, such as teachers' colleges (training schools for teachers), law and medical colleges, colleges of dentistry, pharmacy, mechanical engineering, agriculture, business, mines, etc. Nor will colleges be included which are divinity schools or theological seminaries, as the numerous colleges in Rome, e. g. the Collegium Germanicum, Collegium Latino-Americanum, Collegium Græcum, or the English, Irish, Scotch, North-American Colleges, and many other similar institutions.

As the origin and evolution of the college, or of its equivalent, have not been the same in different countries, it will be necessary, in order to avoid confusion, to treat separately of the colleges peculiar to England. These deserve special attention for the further reason that the American college is an outgrowth of the English college. Even at the present day the distinguishing characteristic of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is the existence of the colleges. Nothing like it is to be found in any other country, and the relation between these colleges and the university is very puzzling to foreigners. The colleges are distinct corporations, which manage their own property and elect their own officers; the university has no legal power over the colleges, although it has jurisdiction over the individual members of the colleges, because they are members also of the university. Mr. Bryce has used the relation between the university and the colleges as an illustration of the relations between the Federal Government and the separate States of the American Union. But one great difference has been pointed out by Mr. Rashdall: "in place of the strict limitation of spheres established by the American Constitution, the jurisdiction of both University and College, if either chose to exercise them, is legally unlimited. Expulsion from a College would not involve expulsion from the University, unless the University chose so to enact; nor could expulsion from the University prevent a man from continuing to be a member or even a Fellow of a College. The University's monopoly of the power of granting degrees is the only connecting link which ensures their harmonious co-operation" (Universities of Europe, II, 793). The professors at Oxford are university officials; tutors and lecturers are college officials; these two bodies form two different systems. The majority of students receive the greater part of their education from the tutors and lecturers. (For further details see "The University of Oxford" in "Ir. Eccl. Rec.", Jan., 1907.)

Although at the present day the collegiate system is peculiar to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, it was not so formerly, nor can England claim the honour of having had the first colleges. This distinction belongs to the University of Paris, the greatest school of medieval Europe. To understand the origin of the colleges and their character, it is necessary to know the social conditions in which the medieval students lived. Large numbers of youths flocked to the famous university towns; there may have been 6000 or 7000 students at Paris, 5000 at Bologna, 2000 at Toulouse, 3000 at Prague, and between 2000 and 3000 at Oxford. Writers of the latter part of the Middle Ages have, it is true, asserted that in preceding centuries Paris had over 30,000, and Oxford from 20,000 to 30,000 students; some popular writers of our days have repeated these statements, but the foremost historians who have dealt with this subject, as Rashdall, Brodrick, Paulsen, Thorold Rogers, and many others, have proved that these fabulous numbers are gross exaggerations (Rashdall, op. cit., II, 581 sqq.). Still the numbers were large, many students very young, some not more than fourteen or fifteen years old; many lived in private houses, others in halls or hostels; the discipline was lax, and excesses and riots were frequent; above all, the poorer students were badly lodged and badly fed, and were at the mercy of unscrupulous and designing men and women. Generous persons, inspired by the spirit of active charity, which was very pronounced during these centuries, sought to alleviate the lot of the poor students. The result was the foundation of the "houses of scholars", later called colleges. Originally they were nothing but endowed hospicia, or lodging and boarding-houses for poor students; the idea of domestic instruction was absent in the early foundations. The first Parisian colleges were homes for ecclesiastical students, "academical cloisters specially planned for the education of secular clergy". About 1180 the College of the Eighteen was founded (so called from the number of students); then Saint-Thomas de Louvre (1186), and several others in the first half of the thirteenth century. The most famous of the colleges in Paris was the Sorbonne (see SORBONNE, COLLEGE OF THE) founded about 1257, and intended for sixteen, later for thirty-six, students of theology. In succeeding centuries the Sorbonne came to stand for the whole theological faculty of the University of Paris. In the course of time the university set aside the original autonomy of the colleges and gained complete control over them; in this the colleges of Paris differed widely from the English colleges. Another difference lay in the fact that most English colleges admitted students for faculties other than the theological. The first English college, Balliol, founded about 1261, at Oxford, was largely an imitation of the earlier foundations of Paris, and differed from the general type of English colleges. The real beginning of the English college system was the foundation of Walter de Merton, who afterwards became Bishop of Rochester. Merton College, established 1263 or 1264, became the archetype of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The scholars were to begin the study of the arts, and then to proceed to theology, a few to the study of canon and civil law. Besides the thirteen full members of the society (the socii, or Fellows), a number of young boys were to be admitted (twelve at first), as "secondary scholars", who were to be instructed in "grammar" until they were enabled to begin the study of arts.

The foundation of the secular colleges was greatly stimulated by the presence of the regular colleges, i. e. the establishments of the religious orders in connexion with the universities. The religious orders early profited by the advantages offered in these educational centres, and in their turn had a considerable share in the further development of the universities, particularly the Dominicans and Franciscans. (See UNIVERSITY.) The Dominicans established a house of study in the University of Paris in 1218, the Franciscans 1219, the Benedictines 1229, the Augustinians in 1259. At Oxford the Dominicans opened a house 1220, the Franciscans 1224. Their example was followed by the Benedictines, who founded Gloucester Hall and Durham College. These religious houses formed each a miniature Studium in the midst of a great university. The young members of the orders lived in well-organized communities which gave freedom from cares and favoured quiet study, whereas other students were left to contend with the many hardships and temptations which surrounded them on all sides. It was natural that men who realized the advantages of such a well-regulated life should endeavour to adapt this system to the needs of students who had no intention of entering religious communities. "The secular college would never perhaps have developed into the important institution which it actually became but for the example set by the colleges of the mendicants" (Rashdall, op. cit., I, 478). An erroneous view has been expressed by some writers, viz., that the foundation of the colleges was a symptom of the growing opposition to ecclesiastical control of education, and especially a sign of hostility to the religious orders. The majority of secular colleges were founded by zealous ecclesiastics, in England especially by bishops, most of whom were very friendly to the religious orders. Mr. Bass Mullinger admits that Trinity Hall, Cambridge, seems to have been founded with the intention of furthering "Ultramontane interests" (Hist. of Un. of Cambridge, 41). Hugh de Balsham, a Benedictine, was the founder of Peterhouse, the first college at Cambridge (1284); the third Cambridge college, Pembroke Hall, was founded in 1347 by Marie de Valence, a friend of the Franciscans; one of two rectors was to be a Friar Minor, and the foundress adjured the fellows to be kind, devoted, and grateful to all religious, "especially the Friars Minor". Gonville hall, Cambridge, was founded in 1350 by Edmund Gonville, an equally warm friend of the Dominicans, for whom he made a foundation at Thetford. The same can be shown with regard to Oxford. To give an instance, according to the statutes of Balliol, one of the outside "procurators" was to be a Franciscan. The indirect influence of religious institutions is discernible also in the semi-monastic features of colleges, some of which have survived to our own times, as the common life and obligatory attendance at chapel. With regard to the latter point it is surprising to learn that the earlier colleges enjoined attendance at Mass only on Sundays, Holy Days, and vigils. At Oxford, the statutes of New College are, as far as is known, the first which require daily attendance at Mass; towards the end of the fifteenth century this daily attendance was enforced also on the students living in the Halls (Rashdall, op. cit., II, 506, 651).

The members of a college were one another's socii or "Fellows". In the beginning the terms "Scholars" and "Fellows" were interchangeable, but gradually the term "Fellows" was restricted to the senior or governing members, the term "Scholars" to the junior members. The Senior Scholars or Fellows were largely employed in looking after college business, in later times particularly in teaching the Junior Scholars. In the early foundations it was understood that the inmates should receive most of their instruction outside the walls of the college; but where younger members were admitted, it was necessary to exercise supervision over their studies, and give some instruction supplementing the public lectures. This supplementary teaching gradually became more prominent; although it is not known exactly when this important educational revolution took place, it seems to belong chiefly to the fifteenth century; finally the colleges practically monopolized instruction. The number of students living in the colleges was small at first; most statutes provided only for between twelve and thirty or forty, a few for seventy or more. Most of the students continued to live outside the colleges in licensed halls or private lodgings. The lodging-house system was checked in the fifteenth century, and later the colleges absorbed most of the student population. But from the first the colleges reacted favourably on the whole student body and exercised a most salutary influence on the manners and morals of the university towns. As Cardinal Newman has said: "Colleges tended to break the anarchical spirit, gave the example of laws, and trained up a set of students who, as being morally and intellectually superior to other members of the academical body became the depositaries of academical power and influence" (Hist. Sketches, III, 221). Thus the university itself was largely benefited by the colleges; it derived from them order, strength, and stability. It is true, at a much later date, the university was sacrificed to the colleges, and the colleges themselves became inactive; contrary to the intention of the founders, who had established them for the maintenance of the poor, they were occupied by the wealthy, especially after the paying boarders, "commoners", or "pensioners", became numerous. They were at times sinecures and clubs rather than places of serious study.

William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester, founded the first college outside a university, namely Winchester College, in 1379, for seventy boys who were to be educated in "grammar", i. e. literature. Grammar colleges had indeed existed before, in connexion with universities and cathedrals; but Winchester was the first elaborate foundation for grammatical education, independent of either a cathedral or a university. From Winchester College the students were to enter New College, Oxford founded by the same patron of education. The example of Winchester was imitated in the foundations of Eton (1440), and in the post-Reformation schools of Harrow, Westminster (both on older foundations), Rugby, Charterhouse, Shrewsbury, and Merchant Taylors. These institutions developed into the famous "public schools". During this period, as for a long time after there was no such hard and fast line between the higher and more elementary instruction as exists at the present day. Many grammar schools of England did partly college work. Contrary to the common opinion, as voiced by Green, Mullinger, and others, the number of grammar schools before the Reformation was very great. Mr. Leach states that "three hundred grammar schools is a moderate estimate of the number in the year 1535, when the floods of the great revolution were let loose. Most of them were swept away either under Henry or his son; or if not swept away, they were plundered and damaged" (English Schools at the Reformation, 5-6). Be it remembered that the term "grammar school" is used in the sense common in England, denoting a higher school where the classical languages form the staple subject of instruction.

A most powerful influence on the further development of the colleges was exercised by the humanistic movement. It cannot be denied that during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the study of the classics had been comparatively neglected, as men's minds were absorbed in scholastic studies. John of Salisbury and Roger Bacon complained bitterly about the neglect of the study of the languages. (Cf. Sandys, Hist. of Class. Scholarship, 568 sqq.) This was completely changed when the enthusiasm for the ancient classics began to spread from Italy throughout Western Christendom. The "new learning" gradually made its victorious entry into the old seats of learning, while new schools were established everywhere, until, about the year 1500, "Catholic Europe presented the aspect of a vast commonwealth of scholars" (Professor Hartfelder, in Schmid's "Geschichte der Erziehung", II, ii, 140). The schools of Vittorino da Feltre, "the first modern schoolmaster", and of Guarino da Verona, became the models for schools in other countries. English scholars had early come in contact with Italian humanists and schools; Grocyn, Linacre, William Latimer, William Lily, Dean Colet were humanists, and tried to introduce the new learning into the English schools. The influence of the Renaissance is most clearly noticed in St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet in 1512, and in the statutes of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 1516, where greater stress is laid on the study of Latin and Greek than in any previous foundation. When humanism had gained the day, largely through the encouragement and influence of men like Bishop John Fisher, Thomas More, and Cardinal Wolsey, English college education had assumed the form and character which were to remain for centuries. The medieval curriculum of the trivium and quadrivium (see ARTS, THE SEVEN LIBERAL) had not been entirely abandoned; it survived in the new scheme of education, but greatly changed and modified. Henceforth the classical languages were the principal subject of instruction, to which mathematics formed the most important addition. "Letters" were the essential foundation; the rest were considered accessory, subsidiary. This humanistic type of schools lasted longer in England than in any other country.

In the medieval universities outside of France and England there existed colleges, but nowhere did they obtain the importance and the influence which they gained in Paris, and most of all in Oxford and Cambridge. The colleges in the German universities, e.g. at Prague, Vienna, Cologne, as well as the Scotch colleges, were primarily intended for the teachers, and only secondarily, if at all, for the students. For the students hostels, called bursœ, were established which were merely lodging-houses. The colleges of the Netherlands, especially those of Louvain, came nearer the English type. The most famous college was the Collegium Trilingue at Louvain, founded in 1517 by Busleiden, after the model of the College of the Three Languages at Alcalá, the celebrated foundation of Cardinal Ximenes for the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At present, there is, on the European continent, no exact equivalent of the English colleges, but as far as the subjects of instruction are concerned, the French lycée and collège, the German gymnasium, and similar institutions, in their higher classes, resemble the English colleges. Many celebrated gymnasia of Teutonic countries developed from pre-Reformation schools. In Schmid's "Geschichte der Erziehung" (V, i, 50 sqq.) there is a long list of such schools which grew out of medieval institutions, e. g. the Elbing gymnasium (Protestant), established in 1536, which developed from a Senatorial school founded in 1300; the Marienburg gymnasium, from a Latin school established by the Teutonic Knights in the fourteenth century; the Berlin gymnasium (1540), formerly St. Peter's School (1276); the Mary Magdalen Gymnasium of Breslau, a Protestant school (1528), which grew out of City School (1267); the Gymnasium Illustre of Brieg (1569), a combination of the ancient Cathedral School and the City School; the Lutheran school of Sagan (1541), originally a Franciscan school (1294). During the Renaissance and Reformation period a few institutions of this kind went by the name of Collegium, but more were styled Gymnasium, Lyceum, Athenœum, Pœdagogium, or Academia, although these names in some cases were given to schools which were rather universities. Institutions of collegiate rank were also termed Studia Particularia, to distinguish them from a Studium Generale, or university. In its character the gymnasium was a humanistic school, the classical languages being the main subject of instruction. Not only the Catholic colleges of the post-Reformation period, but also the Protestant school systems, were based on the pre-Reformation schools, particularly those of the Netherlands. The famous school of Zwickau in Saxony was organized between 1535 and 1546 by Plateanus, a native of Liège, on the model of the school of the Brethren of the Common Life in Liège. John Sturm had studied in the same school at Liège, in the Collegium Trilingue at Louvain, and in the University of Paris, and from these schools he derived most of the details of his gymnasium at Strasburg, which was one of the most typical and most celebrated of early Protestant schools. Sturm's ideas in turn largely influenced another class of German institutions, the famous Fürstenschulen of Grimma, Pforta, etc. Again, Melanchthon, honoured by the title of "founder of the German gymnasium", based his system on the educational principles of Erasmus and other humanists.

Many features of college life are legacies of the past; some have already been pointed out, namely attendance at chapel and the common life in the great boarding-schools. Various forms of distinctly academical dress have grown out of college practices; no particular form of garment was prescribed by university authority in medieval institutions, but in colleges they soon began to wear a "livery" of uniform colour and material. The modern viva voce examination is the successor of the former oral disputation, the examiners now taking the place of the "opponents" of olden times. As has been shown, the support of poor and deserving scholars was the root idea of the foundation of colleges; the scholarships in English and American schools, the bursarships and stipendia in the schools of Germany and other countries, have sprung from, and perpetuate, the same idea. In the provision for the Senior Scholars, in the fellowships of the medieval colleges, and in the practice of endowing professorships with prebends, there was an early systematic attempt at solving the question of professors salaries. In these and other features, modern college systems are intimately linked with the Catholic past.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE

The continuity of educational ideals, and the diversity of their application, according to national needs and characteristics, is well illustrated by the American college. As regards its origin, it is an outgrowth of the English college, in particular of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where John Harvard had been educated. In more than one respect, especially in the fundamental idea of liberal training as the proper preparation for the higher or professional studies, it perpetuates the educational traditions which spread from Paris, and later from the humanistic schools of Italy, to Oxford and Cambridge, and thence were transplanted to the New World. However, the elements derived from Europe were modified from the very beginning and have been still more changed since the foundation of Harvard, so much so that at present there is no exact counterpart of the American college in any other country. There are at present (1908) in the United States over four hundred and seventy institutions which confer degrees and are called universities or colleges, not counting those which are for women exclusively. In some cases, as has well been said, the name "university" is but a "majestic synonym for college", and some of the colleges are only small high schools. Before the American Revolution 11 colleges were founded, chief among them Harvard (1636), William and Mary (1693), Yale (1701), Princeton (1746), University of Pennsylvania (1751), Columbia (1754), Brown (1764), Dartmouth (1770); from the Revolution to 1800, 12, one of them Catholic, at Georgetown, District of Columbia; 33 from 1800 to 1830; 180 from 1830 to. 1865; and about 240 from 1865 to 1908. The older foundations in the East are independent of State control, but possess charters sanctioned by legislation. Many of the more recent foundations, especially in Western and Southern States, are supported and controlled by the State; on the other hand, denominational control has largely disappeared from the old colleges and is excluded from most new foundations. At present about one-half of the colleges are registered as non-sectarian. From the early part of the nineteenth century efforts were made to offer to women the same educational opportunities as to men. Mount Holyoke Seminary, Massachusetts (1837), and Elmira College (1855), were nearly equivalent to the colleges for men. Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York (1865), however, has been styled the "legitimate parent" of the colleges for women, as it established the same standard as that of colleges for men. Vassar College, Wellesley College (1876), Smith College (1875), Mount Holyoke College (1893), Bryn Mawr (1885), and the Woman's College, Baltimore (1885), are the most important women's colleges in the United States. Others are affiliated with colleges or universities for men, as Radcliffe, with Harvard. Many Western and Southern colleges are co-educational.

The American college has been the main repository of liberal education, of an advanced education of general, not technical or professional, character. The "old-fashioned" college had a four-year course of prescribed studies: Latin and Greek, the inheritance of the humanistic period, and mathematics, to which had been added in the course of time natural sciences, the elements of philosophy, and still later, English literature. Modern languages, especially French, were taught to some small extent. Since the Civil War changes have been introduced which are truly revolutionary. Some colleges have grown into universities with different faculties after the model of European, especially German, universities; these institutions have two principal departments, the university proper, for graduate, or professional work, and the collegiate department in the stricter sense of the word. But this very collegiate course has undergone a far-reaching transformation; the line of separation between university and college proper has been largely effaced, so that the college is a composite institution, of a secondary and higher nature, giving instruction which in Europe is given partly by the secondary schools, partly by the universities. the causes of this and other changes are manifold. The nineteenth century saw the extraordinary development of the "high school", a term, which in the United States, means a secondary school with a four-year course between the elementary (public) school and the college. In 1900, there were over 6000 public and nearly 2000 private schools of this grade with over 630,000 pupils, more than one-half of these being female students. Part of the work of these schools was formerly done in the college. The result of this separation and development of the secondary schools was, first, an increase of the age of applicants for college, and, secondly, higher entrance requirements. In consequence of the increase of age, many students now pass directly from the high school to professional studies, as few professional schools require a college diploma for admission. On the other hand, in order to gain a year or two, some colleges have shortened the course from four to three years (Johns Hopkins); others have kept the four-year college course, but allow the students to devote the last year, or even the last two years partly to professional work (Harvard, Columbia).

A second cause of the modifications mentioned, and one that affected the college seriously was the excessive expansion of the college curriculum, the pressure of many new subjects for recognition, some of which pertain rather to professional schools. The advance in, and enthusiasm for, the natural sciences during the nineteenth century effected changes in the schools of all civilized countries. In many quarters there was a clamour for "practical" studies, and the old classical course was decried as useless, or merely ornamental; its very foundation, the theory of mental or formal discipline, well expressed in the term gymnasium for classical schools in Germany, has been vigorously assailed, but not disproved. At present the pendulum seems to swing away from the utilitarian views of Spencer and others, and the conviction gains ground that the classics, although they can no longer claim the educational monopoly, are after all a most valuable means of liberal culture and the best preparation for professional studies. To meet the difficulty arising from the multitude of new studies and the growing demand for "practical" courses, the elective system was introduced. This system, in its more extreme form, is by many regarded as detrimental to serious work; few students are able to make a wise choice; many are tempted to choose subjects, not for their intrinsic value, but because they are more easy or agreeable; they follow the paths of least resistance and avoid the harder studies of greater educational value. To avoid these evils a compromise has been invented in some colleges in the form of a modified election, the group system, which allows the choice of a certain field of studies, of groups of subjects regulated by the faculty. Some choice in certain branches has been found profitable, but it is now a very general opinion that the elective system can be employed in the college only with many limitations and safeguards, and that certain valuable literary, or "culture" studies in the best sense of the term, should be obligatory. American educators of the highest repute have come to regard early specialization as a dangerous pedagogical error, and they maintain that the elective principle has its proper place in the university. Another result of the encroachment of the university on the college is the disappearance of the old-fashioned teacher with a good general knowledge and practical skill as an educator; his place is taken by the specialist, who more resembles the university professor, who lectures rather than teaches, and comes little in contact with the individual student; the classes are broken up, and courses take their place. This means the loss of an important educational factor, namely, the personal influence of the teacher on the pupil. The larger colleges are particularly exposed to this danger; in the smaller colleges there is more personal intercourse between the faculty and the students, generally also stricter discipline.

The American college is, at the present time, in a state of transition, in a condition of unrest and fermentation. The questions of the length of the college course, of the proper function of the college, of its relation to university work, of the elective system, of the relative value of classics and modern languages, natural and social sciences — all these are topics of general discussion and matters of vital importance and, at the same time, questions beset with great difficulties. Hence it is not surprising to find prominent educators ranged on different sides, some advocating far-reaching changes, others, more conservative, warning against hazardous experiments. Modern conditions undoubtedly demand changes in the college; it would be most desirable if the old literary curriculum and instruction in sciences and other new subjects could be combined into a harmonious system. The present tendency of the college seems to be to undertake too much in subjects and methods, instead of remaining the culmination of secondary training, the final stage of general education.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), I, II; BRODRICK, History of the University of Oxford (London, 1886); MULLINGER, The University of Cambridge (2 viols., Cambridge, 1883); IDEM, History of the University of Cambridge (London, 1888); DENIABLE AND CHATELAINE, Chartering Universalism Parisians (Paris, 1889-1896); BOUZOUKI, The University of Paris in Catholic University Bulletin (July, Oct., 1895, Jan., 1896); BROTHER ACACIAS, University Colleges in Am. Cathy. Q. Rev. (Oct., 1893., Jan., 1804); WOODWARD, Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators (Cambridge, 1897); IDEM, Studies in Education during the Age of the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1906); EINSTEIN, The Italian Renaissance in England (New York, 1902); RUSSELL, German Higher Schools (New York, 1899); PAULSEN, Geisha. des gilchrist Underprices au den deutsche Schoolmen undo Universities (2nd ed., 2 viols., Leipzig, 1896); SCHMIDT, Geschichte der Erziehung (Stuttgart, 1889 and 1901), II, ii and V, i; NEWMAN, Historical Sketches, III: Rise and Progress of Universities (charmingly written, but with no great value as history). — For the history of the word: New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, ed. MURRAY (Oxford, 1893), II.

Monographs on Education in the United States, ed. NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, particularly WEST, The American College (Albany, 1899); SCHWICKERATH, Jesuit Education (St. Louis, 1905), with special reference to American college conditions, chapter x: The Intellectual Scope; xi: Prescribed Courses or Elective Studies?; xii: Classical Studies; Special Report on Educational Subjects (London. 1902), IX-XI; Educational Review (New York, Jan., 1901; May, 1902; Sept., 1906, etc.); articles in The Atlantic Monthly and in The Forum.

ROBERT SCHWICKERATH.

College (in Canon Law)

A collection (Lat. collegium) of persons united together for a common object so as to form one body. The members are consequently said to be incorporated, or to form a corporation. Colleges existed among the Romans and Greeks from the earliest times. The Roman laws required at least three persons for constituting a college. Legal incorporation was made, at least in some cases, by decrees of the Senate, edicts of the emperor, or by special laws. There were, however, general laws under which colleges could be formed by private persons, and if the authorities judged that the members had conformed to the letter and spirit of these laws, they had incontestable rights as collegia legitima; if the requisites were not adhered to they could be suppressed by administrative act. The Colleges could hold property in common and could sue and be sued. In case of failure this common property could be seized, but that of the individual members was not liable to seizure. The Roman collegium was never instituted as a corporation sole; still, when reduced to one member, that individual succeeded to all the rights of the corporation and could employ its name (J. F. Keating, "Roman Legislation on Collegia and Sodalicia" in "The Agape", London, 1901, p. 180 sqq.). Colleges were formed among the ancient Romans for various purposes. Some of these had a religious object, as the college of the Arval Brothers, of the Augurs, etc.; others were for administrative purposes, as of quæstors, tribunes of the people; others again were trade unions or guilds, as the colleges of bakers, carpenters. The early Roman Christians are said to have sometimes held church property during times of persecution under the title of collegium. For the evidence of this, see H. Leclercq, Manuel d'Archéolog. Chrét. (Paris, 1907, I, 261-66). It is not admitted by Mgr. Duchesne, Hist. anc. de l'Eglise (Paris 1906, I).

Canon Law

Most of the prescriptions of the ancient civil law were received into the church law and they are incorporated in the "Corpus Juris". By canonists, a college has been defined as a collection of several rational bodies forming one representative body. Some authors consider university and community as synonymous terms with college, but others insist that there are points of difference. Thus, there are canonists who define university as a collection of bodies distinct from one another, but employing the same name specially conferred upon them. Pirhing remarks that a community of priests attached to the same church do not form a college unless they are members of one body whose head is a prelate elected by that body. According to canon law three persons are required to form a college. Some authors maintained that two were sufficient for the purpose, because Pope Innocent, alluding to St. Matthew, xviii, 20, says that no presbyter is to be chosen for a church where two or three form the congregation, except by their canonical election. As congregation here evidently means college, these writers contend that two can therefore form a college. As a matter of fact, however, the pontiff is simply affirming that the right of election will remain with an already constituted college even though only two of its members remain after the death of the prelate. Pirhing gives as the reason why two cannot constitute a college, that though it be not necessary that the college actually have a head, yet it must be at least capable of giving itself a presiding officer, or rector of the college. If, then, there be only two members and one be constituted the head, the other can not form the body, for the body requires several members, and the head is distinct from the body. He does not mean to assert, however, that if a college be reduced to two members, it can not preserve its corporate rights. On the contrary, the canon law explicitly affirms that one surviving member can conserve the privileges of the corporate body, not for himself personally, but for the college. When a legally constituted college has been reduced to two members, one can elect the other as prelate. If the college be reduced to one member, it becomes a virtual, not an actual, corporation. The single remaining member can exercise the acts belonging to the college, and although he can not elect himself prelate, yet he can choose or nominate some other proper person to the prelacy. He may also commit the election to other persons, or even to one, as the bishop.

The ancient canonists, when stating that three constitute a college, give also the numbers requisite for other canonical bodies, thus: five are necessary to form a university, two a congregation, more than two a family, and ten a parish. Among conspicuous ecclesiastical colleges may be mentioned the Sacred College of Cardinals (see CARDINAL) and cathedral and collegiate chapters (see CHAPTER and COLLEGIATE). The name college is specially applied also to corporate educational bodies within the Church, as without it. Before the Reformation, and even in the first years of Queen Elizabeth, the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were always spoken of as ecclesiastical corporations. By the present English law they are purely lay corporations, even though all their members be clergymen. The title "Apostolic College" is applied in Rome to those institutions which are immediately subject to and controlled by the Holy See, and are consequently exempt from any other spiritual or temporal authority; the students are declared to be under the direct protection of the pope. Such institutions are, among others, the College of the Propaganda, the German, English, Irish, and Scotch Colleges, and the North and South American Colleges. (For the Apostles of Jesus Christ as a collective authority, see APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)

PIRHING, Jus Canonicum Universum (Venice, 1759), I; FERRARIS, Biblioth. Canon. (Rome, 1886), II; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London, 1901).

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Apostolic College

This term designates The Twelve Apostles as the body of men commissioned by Christ to spread the kingdom of God over the whole world and to give it the stability of a well-ordered society: i.e. to be the founders, the foundation, and pillars of the visible Church on earth. The name "apostle" connotes their commission. For an Apostle is a missionary, sent by competent authority, to extend the Gospel to new lands: a tradition, beginning with the sending of The Twelve, has consecrated this meaning of the term to the exclusion of all others which it might derive from its etymology. When we speak of the Apostles as a "college", we imply that they worked together under one head and for one purpose. Referring the reader to the article APOSTLES for the Scriptural and positive treatment of the question, we may now deal with its dogmatic aspects.

It is evident, a priori, that Revelation must be transmitted and communicated by means of envoys and teachers accredited by God. The consideration of the nature of revelation and its object shows that no other theory is practically possible. In fact, Christ founded a teaching, governing, and ministering Apostolate, whose charter is contained in Matthew, xxviii, 18-20.

All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore [in virtue of, and endowed with, this My sovereign power: "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21)], teach ye [matheteusate -- make to yourselves disciples, teach as having power -- Mark, i, 22] all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them [didaskontes] to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you [eneteilamen] and behold I am with you all days, even to the comsummation of the world.

This college of rulers, teachers, and ministers of the sacraments was placed under the headship of St. Peter, the rock upon whom the foundations of the Church were established. The many texts refering to this subject (see APOSTLES) may be summarized as follows: After accomplishing His own mission, Jesus Christ, in virtue of His power and authority, sent into the world a body of teachers and preachers presided over by one head. They were His representatives, and had for their mission to publish to the world all revealed truth until the end of time. Their mission was not exclusively personal; it was to extend to their successors. Mankind were bound to receive them as Christ Himself. That their word might be His word, and might be recognized as such, He promised them His presence and the aid of the Holy Ghost to guarantee the infallibility of their doctrine; He promised external and supernatural signs as vouchers of its authenticity; He gave their doctrine an effective sanction by holding out an eternal reward to those who should faithfully adhere to it, and by threatening with eternal punishments those who should reject it. This conception of the Apostolate is set forth in the writings of St. Paul and realized in the practice of all the Apostles (Rom., x, 8-l9; Eph., iv, 7-14). It runs through the whole Catholic tradition, and is the very soul of the Church at the present day. The College of the Apostles lives forth in the episcopate, which gradually took its place and filled its functions. There are, however, between the attributes of the original Apostles and those of the succeeding hierarchy some differences arising from the circumstance that the Apostles were personally chosen and trained by Christ to lay the foundation of the Church. That circumstance creates for them an exceptional and intransmissible eminence over their successors.

(1) Although both, bishops and Apostles, are appointed by Divine authority, yet the Apostles received their commission immediately from Christ, whereas the bishops receive theirs but mediately, i.e. through the medium of human authority. The power of order and jurisdiction is the same in the Apostles and in their successors, but, whereas the Apostles receive it from the Divine Founder Himself, the bishops receive it through the channel of other bishops. Immediate commission implies, in the missionary, the power to produce, at first hand, credentials to prove that he is the envoy of God by doing works which God alone can work. Hence the charisma, or gift, of miracles granted to the Apostles, but withheld from the generality of their successors whose mission is sufficiently accredited through their connection with the original Apostolate.

(2) Another prerogative of the Apostles is the universality of their mission. They were sent to establish the Church wherever men in need of salvation were to be found. Their field of action had no limits but those of their own convenience and choice, at least if we take them collectively; directions by the chief Apostle are not excluded, for on them may have depended the good order and the success of their work.

(3) A third Apostolic prerogative is the plenitude of power. As planters of the Church the Apostles required and possessed the power to speak with full authority in their own name, without appealing to higher authorities; also the power to found and organize local churches, to appoint and consecrate bishops and to invest them with jurisdiction. The limit to their powers in this respect was: not to undo the work already done by their colleagues. Such power, if needed, could have been exercised only by the head of the Church.

(4) A fourth privilege of the Apostles is their personal infallibility in preaching the Gospel. Their successors in the hierarchy owe what infallibility they possess to the Divine assistance watching, with unfailing care, over the magisterium, or teaching office as a whole, and over its head; the Apostles received each personally, the Holy Ghost, Who revealed to them all the truth they had to preach. This Pentecostal gift was necessary in order to establish each particular church on the solid foundation of unshakable truth.

The prerogatives of the Apostles as founders of the Church were, of course, personal; they were not to be transmitted to their successors because to these they were not necessary. What was passed on is the ordinary powers of order and jurisdiction. The Apostolate was an extraordinary and only temporary form of the episcopate; it was superseded by an ordinary and permanent hierarchy as soon as its constitutional work was done. There is, however, one Apostle has a successor of equal powers in the Roman pontiff. Above the prerogatives of his colleagues St. Peter had the unique distinction of being the principle of the Church's unity and cohesion. As the Church has to endure to the end of time, so has the unifying and preserving office of St. Peter. Without such a principle, without a head, the body of the Bride of Christ would be no better than a disjointed congeries of members, unworthy of the Divine Bridegroom. In fact the connection of the Church with Christ and the Apostles would be loosened and weakened to the breaking-point. The history of Churches separated from Rome affords abundant proof of this statement. In the Roman pontiffs, then, the Apostolate is still living and acting. Hence from the earliest times the office of the pope has been honoured with the title of Apostolate, as continuing the functions of the Apostolate; the Roman See has, in the same order of ideas, been styled the Apostolic See, and the reigning pope, in the Middle Ages, used to be addressed Apostolatus vester and Apostolicus. In the Litany of Saints we pray; "That thou wouldst vouchsafe to preserve our apostolic prelate [ domnum nostrum apostolicum] and all orders of the Church in holy religion".

The difference between the Apostolate of St. Peter and that of his successors bears on two points only:

• St. Peter was chosen and appointed directly by Our Lord; the pope receives the same Divine appointment through the channel of men; the electors designate the person or whom God bestows the office.
• The papal infalliltility also differs from that of St. Peter. The pope is only infallible when, in the full exercise of his authority, ex cathedra, he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church. His infallibility rests on the Divine assistance, on the permanent presence of Christ in the Church. The infallibility of St. Peter and the Apostles relied on their being filled and penetrated by the light of the indwelling Holy Spirit of truth.

The charisma of working miracles, granted to the Apostles, is not continued in the popes. If it was necessary to convince the first believers that the hand of God was laying the foundations of the Church, it ceases to be so when the strength, the beauty, and the vastness of the structure proclaims to the world that none but the Father in Heaven could have erected it for the good of His children.

SCHEEBEN, Manual of Catholic Theology, tr. WILHELM AND SCANNEL (London, 1906), 1, 8, 9, 11.

J. WILHELM

The Collège de France

The Collège de France was founded in the interest of higher education by Francis I. He had planned the erection of this college as far back as 1517, but not until 1530, and then under the inspiration of Budé and Jean du Bellay, did he realize his idea. As the University of Paris taught neither Hebrew nor Greek, he established chairs of these two languages, and secured for them the best teachers obtainable, Paradisi and Guidacerio Vatable for Hebrew, and Peter Danes and Jacques Toussaint for Greek. Their salaries were paid from the king's coffers, and they were to receive students gratuitously, a ruling which caused great rivalry on the part of the professors of the University of Paris, who depended on tuition fees; The professors of the college were accused before Parliament by Noël Beda, on the plea that the Vulgate would lose its authority since Hebrew and Creek were taught publicly. G. de Marcillac defended the "Royal Lectors", as they were called, and won their case. Later on they were accused of a leaning towards Calvinism, and the Parliament forbade them to read or interpret any of the Sacred Books in Hebrew or Greek; however, the protection of the king prevented the execution of the sentence.

In 1534 a chair of Latin eloquence was added to the college. The succeeding kings favoured the college. During the Revolution the courses were unmolested; the Convention even raised the salaries, by decree, from one and two thousand francs to three thousand. The Collège de France was first ruled by the Grand Aumônier de France, who appointed the professors until 1661, when it became a part of the University of Paris, from which it was afterwards separated for a time, and finally reaffiliated in 1766. In 1744 the king himself took it under his direct authority. In 1795 the minister of the interior was in charge; in 1831 the minister of public works; in 1832 the minister of public instruction, who has retained the charge to the present day. It is independent of the university, and administered by its own faculty. The college has been known by different names: in 1534 it was called the "College of the Three Languages"; under Louis XIII, the "Collège Royal"; during the Revolution, the "Collège National"; Napoleon called it the "Collège Impérial", and under the Restoration, it bore the name of "Collège Royal". Through the munificence of kings and governments the college grew steadily. In 1545 Francis added to the three chairs of language already established another with two teachers for mathematics, one teacher for medicine, and one for philosophy. Charles IX introduced surgery; Henry III gave it a course in Arabic languages; Henry IV, botany and astronomy; Louis XIII gave it canon law and Syriac; Louis XV, French literature; Louis XVIII endowed it for the Sanskrit and Chinese literatures. In 1831 political economy was introduced, and since then the progress of the sciences has necessitated new chairs, such as those of organic chemistry, physio-psychology, etc.

Renan clearly characterized the tendencies and methods of the Collège de France. In comparing them with those of the University of Paris. he wrote: "The Sorbonne guards the deposit of acquired knowledge — it does not receive sciences before they have shown the life in them — on the contrary the Collège de France favours the sciences in the process of formation. It favours scientific research;" An edict of 1572 forbade any but Catholics to teach in the Collège de France. This law was strictly obeyed as long as the college remained under Catholic authority, but in recent times it has had among its professors such enemies of Catholicism as Michelet, Renan, and Havet. On the whole, however, the faculty of the Collège de France has counted in its ranks brilliant men irrespective of creed, such as Aubert, Lalande, Daubenton, Delille, Cuvier, Vauquelin, Ampère, Biot, Rollin, Sylvestre de Sacy, Abel Rémusat, Boissonade, Daunou, Burnouf, Tissot, etc. In 1907 there were fifty-nine professors and instructors.

DUVAL, Le Collège de France (Paris, 1644); GOUGET, Mémoire historique et littéraire sur le Collège royal de France (3 vols., Paris, 1753); BOUCHON AND BRANDELY, Le Collège de France (Paris, 1873); LEFRANC, Histoire du Collège de France (Paris, 1892); RENAN, Questions contemporaines (Paris, 1868), 143 sqq.; LEFRANC, Les Origines de Collège de France in Revue intern. de l'Enseign. (15 May, 1890).

J.B. DELAUNAY.

Collegiate

(Lat. collegiatus, from collegium)

An adjective applied to those churches and institutions whose members form a college (see COLLEGE). The origin of cathedral and collegiate chapters, springing from the common life of clerics attached to cathedrals and other important churches, has been treated in the article CHAPTER, where special attention is given to what regards cathedral capitulars (see CHAPTER). Collegiate churches were formed on the model of cathedral churches, and the collegiate canons have rights and duties similar to the capitulars of a cathedral, except that they have no voice in the government of the diocese, even when the see is vacant. Their main object is the solemn celebration of the Divine Office in choir. Already in the time of Charlemagne many wealthy collegiate churches had been founded throughout his empire, especially in Germany and France, of which that at Aachen was the most celebrated. In England there was also a large number of these institutions, and at the Reformation, when they were dissolved, the revenues of some of them were used for founding public schools. The founding of a collegiate church gives the founder no right to nominate its members unless he have received a special papal indult to that effect.

For the erection of collegiate institutions, the authority of the Holy See is necessary. The pope refers the matter to the consideration of the Congregation of the Council, which makes a favourable report if certain conditions are found fulfilled, such as: the dignity of the city, the large number of clergy and people, the size and beauty of the church structure, the splendour of its belongings, and the sufficiency of the income. Although the bishop cannot erect a collegiate church, yet, if the college, owing to the death of canons or other similar cause, should cease as an active corporation but still retain, de jure, its status as a college, the bishop can restore it, for this would not be a canonical erection. As the ordinary cannot erect a collegiate church, so neither can he reduce it to a merely parochial status, and still less has he the power to suppress one. Only the pope can formally dissolve a collegiate foundation. A church loses its collegiate dignity by the will of the members, or the act of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, or the death of all the canons. When the right of an institution which claims the collegiate dignity is disputed, the question is to be decided by certain signs which create a presumption in its favour. These are, among others, an immemorial reputation as a collegiate institution, a common seal proper to a college, capitular meetings of the members under the presidency of a dean, the making of contracts in the name of the college, the right of electing a prelate, the cure of souls dependent on the chapter.

Although collegiate churches are ordinarily under the jurisdiction of the bishop, yet its members are not obliged to render any service to the ordinary outside of their own churches, except in case of necessity or through contrary custom. Neither can the cathedral chapter interfere with the chapter of a collegiate church when the latter remains within its own right and privileges. Collegiate churches are distinguished into insignes (famous) and non insignes. There are, however, no rules given in canon law to discern one from the other. Canonists declare that a church is insignis if it be the mother church of the locality, have right of precedence in solemn functions, be of ancient foundation, and conspicuous by its structure and the number of its dignitaries and members, and likewise be situated in a famous or well-populated city. The canons of a church which is insignis have precedence over the canons of other collegiate institutions at Synods and in public processions. When a parochial church is elevated to collegiate rank, the right to the cure of souls does not necessarily pass to the chapter, but may remain with the parish priest. When the chapter has the right of presentation and its votes are equally divided, the bishop may decide as to which part of the canons has presented a candidate of superior merit to the other. If, however, the merits of the candidates be equal, the decision must be referred to the pope, if the chapter cannot agree after taking two ballots. The chapters of collegiate churches, by common law, have the right of electing or presenting candidates for the dignities and canonries of their chapter. The rights of confirmation and installation belong to the bishop. Many innovations on these rights have been made by special decrees or customs, and, according to the prevailing discipline, account must be taken of the so-called pontifical reservations, or the rights which the pope has reserved to himself, especially as regards the highest dignity of the chapter, and also of the legitimate privileges possessed by patrons in Spain, Austria, Bavaria, etc. of nominating and presenting candidates. These privileges are still in force in many instances.

WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899) II; DE LUCA, Prœlectiones Jur. Can. (Rome, 1897), II; FERRARIS. Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1886), II; LUCIDI, De Visit. S. Liminum (Rome, 1899), III.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

St. Colman

Bishop and patron of Kilmacduagh, born at Kiltartan c. 560; died 29 October, 632. He lived for many years as a hermit in Arranmore, where he built two churches, both forming the present group of ruins at Kilmurvy. Thence he sought greater seclusion in the woods of Burren, in 592, and at length, in 610, founded a monastery, which became the centre of the tribal Diocese of Aidhne, practically coextensive with the present See of Kilmacduagh. Although the "Martyrology of Donegal" assigns his feast to 2 February, yet the weight of evidence and the tradition of the diocese point to 29 October, on which day his festival has been kept from time immemorial, and which was fixed by a rescript of Pope Benedict XIV, in 1747, as a major double.

Martyrology of Donegal, ed. TODD AND REEVES (Dublin, 1864); Customs of Hy-Fiachrach, ed. O'DONOVAN; LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); II; COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib. (Louvain, 1645); PETRIE, Round Towers (Dublin, 1845); FAHEY, Hist. and Ant. of Kilmacduagh (1893).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Colman

Saint Colman of Templeshambo was a Connacht saint, and has been confounded with the patron of Kilmacduagh, but he lived somewhat earlier, and the sphere of his ministry lay in the present County Wexford. He Was a contemporary of Saint Aidan, who appointed him Abbot of Templeshambo, the mother church of Enniscorthy. Many legends are told of Saint Colman and of his holy well with its sacred ducks, but certain it is that he laboured zealously at the foot of Mount Leinster, his monastery being known as Temple Sean Bothe. He died c. 595 on 27 October, on which day his feast is recorded in the "Martyrology of Donegal".

Customs of Hy-Fiachrach; COLGAN, Acta. Sanct. Hib.; Martyrology of Donegal; FAHEY, Hist. and Ant. of Kilmacduagh (1893); GRATTAN-FLOOD, Hist. of Enniscorthy (1898); SHEARMAN, Loca Patriciana (Dublin, 1882).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Colman Mac Lenine

Saint Colman Mac Lenine, founder and patron of the See of Cloyne, born in Munster, c. 510; died 24 November, 601. He was endowed with extraordinary poetic powers, being styled by his contemporaries "Royal Bard of Munster". The Ardrigh of Ireland gave him Cloyne, in the present County Cork, for his cathedral abbey, in 560, and he laboured for more than forty years in his extensive diocese. Several of his Irish poems are still extant, notably a metrical panegyric on St. Brendan. Colgan mentions a metrical life of St. Senan by him. His feast is observed on 24 November. Another St. Colman is also venerated on the same day, as recorded by St. Aengus in his "Felire": —

Mac Lenine the most excellent

With Colman of Duth-chuilleann.

ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (1873); COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib.; HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (New York, 1901); SMITH, History of Cork; OLDEN, Some Notices of St. Colman of Cloyne (1881); STOKES, Anecdota Oxon. (1890).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Colman

Founder of the Abbey and Diocese of Mayo, born in Connacht, c. 605; died 8 August, 676. He became a monk of Iona, and so famous were his virtues and learning, as testified by St. Bede, that on the death of St. Finan, in 661, he was appointed Bishop of Lindisfarne. During his brief episcopacy, the Synod of Whitby was held, in 664, as a result of which (St. Colman being a determined protagonist of the old Irish computation), owing to the decision of King Oswy on the Paschal controversy, he resigned his see. Between the years 665 and 667 St. Colman founded several churches in Scotland, and, at length, accompanied by thirty disciples, sailed for Ireland, settling down at Innisboffin, County Mayo, in 668. Less than three years later he erected an abbey, exclusively for the English monks in Mayo, subsequently known as "Mayo of the Saxons". His last days were spent on the island of Innisboffin. His feast is celebrated 8 August.

HEALY, Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum (1902); O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, VIII; MORAN, Irish Saints in Great Britain (1903); KNOX, Notes on the Dioceses of Tuam (1904); BEDE, Ecclesiastical History of England, ed. PLUMMER (London, 1907).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Colman

Born in Dalaradia, c. 450; date of death uncertain. His feast is celebrated 7 June. He founded the See of Dromore, of which he is patron and over which he presided as bishop. He studied at Noendrum (Mahee Island), under St. Mochae or Coelan, one of the earliest disciples of St. Patrick. Many interesting stories are told of his edifying life at Noendrum and the miracles he worked there. To perfect his knowledge of the Scriptures St. Colman went to the great school of Emly, c. 470 or 475, and remained there some years. At length he returned to Mahee Island to see his old master, St. Mochae, and remained under his guidance for a long period, acting as assistant in the school. Among his many pupils at Mahee Island, in the first quarter of the sixth century, was St. Finian of Moville.

COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib.; HEALY, Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum (4th ed.); O'LAVERTY, Down and Connor, I; O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, VI; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Elo Colman

Famed in Irish hagiology. He was founder and first Abbot of Muckamore, and from the fact of being styled "Coarb of MacNisse", is regarded as Bishop of Connor. He was born c. 555 in Glenelly, in the present County Tyrone, and died at Lynally in 611, 26 September, on which day his feast is celebrated. He studied under his maternal uncle, St. Columcille, who procured for him the site of a monastery now known as Lynally (Lann Elo). Hence his designation of Colmanellus or Colman Elo. Subsequently he founded the Abbey of Muckamore, and was appointed Bishop of Connor. He is also known as St. Colman Macusailni.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. MacCathbad Colman

Famed in Irish hagiology. He was distinguished as MacCathbad, whence Kilmackevat, County Antrim, was Bishop of Kilroot, a minor see afterwards incorporated in the Diocese of Connor. He was a contemporary of St. Ailbe, and his feast has been kept from time immemorial on 16 October.

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

St. Colman

Saint Colman, one of the patrons of Austria, was also an Irish saint, who, journeying to Jerusalem, was martyred near Vienna, in 1012, 13 October, on which day his feast is observed. His life, written by Erchenfrid of Melk, is in "Acta SS.", VI, 357 and "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", IV, 647.

ADAMNAN, Life of St. Columba; O'LAVERTY, Down and Connor, V; Calendar of Donegal; COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib.: O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, IX; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints; HOGAN, St. Colman of Austria; URWALEX. Der königliche Pilgen St. Colomann (Vienna, 1880)).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD.

Walter Colman

Walter Colman, Friar Minor and English martyr: date of birth uncertain; died in London, 1645. He came of noble and wealthy parents and when quite young left England to study at the English College at Douai. In 1625 he entered the Franciscan Order at Douai, receiving in religion the name of Christopher of St. Clare, by which he is more generally known. having completed his year of novitiate, he returned to England at the call of the provincial, Father John Jennings, but was immediately imprisoned because he refused to take the Oath of Allegiance. Released through the efforts of his friends, he went to London, where he was employed in the duties of the sacred ministry and where, during his leisure moments, he composed "The Duel of Death" (London, 1632 or 1633), an elegant metrical treatise on death, which be dedicated to Queen Henrietta Maria, consort of Charles I. When the persecution broke out anew in 1641, Colman returned to England from Douai, whither he had gone to regain his health. On 8 Dec. of the same year he was brought to trial, together with six other priests, two of whom were Benedictines and four members of the secular clergy. They were all condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered on 13 Dec., but through the interposition of the French ambassador the execution was stayed indefinitely. Colman lingered on in Newgate for several years until he died, exhausted by starvation and the hardships of the dungeon where he was confined.

THADDEUS, The Franciscans in England (London, 1898), 62, 72, 106; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Bioq., s. v. Colman; HOPE, Franciscan Martyrs in England (London, 1878), xi, 123 sqq; MASON, Certamen Seraphicum (Quaracchi, 1885), 211, 228; LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1887), IV, 368.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN.

Joseph Ludwig Colmar

Bishop of Mainz; born at Strasburg, 22 June, 1760; died at Mainz, 15 Dec., 1818. After his ordination (20 Dec., 1783) he was professor of history and Greek at the Royal Seminary, and curate at St. Stephen's, Strasburg. During the reign of terror, brought about at Strasburg by the apostate monk, Eulogius Schneider, he secretly remained in the city, and under various disguises administered the sacraments. After the fall of Robespierre he went about preaching and instructing, and worked so successfully for the restoration of religion in the city of Strasburg that Napoleon appointed him Bishop of Mainz; he was consecrated at Paris, 24 August, 1802. The metropolitan see of St. Boniface had been vacant for ten years; the cathedral had been profaned and partially destroyed in 1793; a new diocese had been formed under the old title of Mainz, but subject to the Archbishop of Mechlin; revolution, war, and secularization of convents, monasteries, and the property of the former archdiocese had ruined his new diocese spiritually and financially. Colmar worked like a true apostle; he rebuilt and reconsecrated the profaned cathedral, and by his influence saved the cathedral of Speyer which was about to be destroyed by order of the Government. After many difficulties he opened a seminary (1804), which he placed under the direction of the Venerable Libermann; he visited every parish and school, and reorganized the 1iturgical services, confraternities, devotions, and processions, which the Revolution had swept away. His principal aim was to organize a system of catechetical instruction, to inspire his priests with apostolic zeal, and to guard them against the false enlightenment of that age. He was an active adversary of Wessenberg and the rationalistic liberal tendencies represented by him and the Illuminati. He tried to reintroduce several religious communities in his diocese, but accomplished, however, only the restoration of the Institute of Mary Ward (Dames Anglaises). Shortly before his death he established the sisters of Divine Providence in the Bavarian part of his diocese (the former Diocese of Speyer). During the epidemic of 1813 and 1814, after the battle of Leipzig, he personally served the sick and dying. Colmar edited a collection of old German church hymns (1807) and several excellent prayer books. His sermons were published in seven volumes (Mainz, 1836; Ratisbon, 1879).

SELBST, J. L. Colmar (1902); REMLING, Gesch. der Bischöfe von Speyer (Speyer, 1867); see also life by SAUSEN in both editions of Colmar's sermons.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK.

Cologne

(Ger. KÖLN or CÖLN), German city and archbishopric.

THE CITY

Cologne, in size the third city of Prussia, and the capital of the district (Regierungsbezirk) of Cologne, is situated in the lowlands of the lower Rhine on both sides of the river. Its area is 45 square miles; its population (1 December, 1905), 428,722, of whom 339,790 are Catholics, 76,718 Protestants, 11,035 of other sects.

The history of Cologne goes back to the first century before Christ. After Marcus Agrippa transplanted the Ubii from the right to the left bank of the Rhine (38 B.C.), Ara Ubiorum, the centre of the civil and religious life of this tribe, occupied the site of the modern Cologne. In A.D. 50 Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus, founded here a colony of veterans called Colonia Agrippina; the inhabitants of the two settlements mingled freely with each other, while the Germans gradually assumed Roman customs. After the revolt of the Batavians, Cologne was made the capital of a Roman province and was repeatedly the residence of the imperial court. At an early date Christianity came to Cologne with the Roman soldiers and traders; according to Irenaeus of Lyons, it was a bishop's see as early as the second century. However, Saint Maternus, a contemporary of Constantine, is the first historically certain Bishop of Cologne. As a result of its favourable situation, the city survived the stormy period of the migrations of the Teutonic tribes. When the Ripuarian Franks took possession of the country in the fifth century, it became the residence of their king. On account of the services of the Bishops of Cologne to the Merovingian kings, the city was to have been the metropolitan see of Saint Boniface, but Mainz was chosen, for unknown reasons, and Cologne did not become an archbishopric until the time of Charlemagne. The city suffered heavily from invasions of the Northmen, especially in the autumn of 881, but recovered quickly from these calamities, especially during the reign of the Saxon emperors and of such vigorous archbishops as Bruno, Heribert, Piligrun, and others.

In the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Cologne attained great prosperity. The basis of this prosperity was the commercial activity of the city, which placed it in relation not only with Northern Europe, but also with Hungary, Venice, and Genoa. The local crafts also flourished; the spinners, weavers, and dyers, the woollen-drapers, goldsmiths, sword-cutlers, and armour-makers of Cologne were especially celebrated. The ecclesiastical importance of the city was equally great; no city north of the Alps was so rich in great churches, sanctuaries, relics, and religious communities. It was known as the "German Rome," and was annually visited by pilgrims, especially after Rainald of Dassel, Archbishop of Cologne (1159-67), brought thither the remains of the Three Magi from Milan. Learning was zealously cultivated in the cathedral school, in the collegiate chapters, and the cloisters; famous philosophers taught here, among them Rupert of Deutz, Caesarius of Heisterbach, Duns Scotus, and Blessed Albertus Magnus. The arts also flourished, on account of the numerous churches and civil buildings. With the growth of the municipal prosperity, the pride of the citizens and their desire for independence also increased, and caused them to feel more dissatisfied with the sovereignty of the archbishop. This resulted in bitter feuds between the bishops and the city, which lasted for two centuries with varying fortunes. The first uprising occurred under Anno II, at Easter of the year 1074; the citizens rose against the archbishop, but were defeated within three days, and severely punished. They received important concessions from Archbishop Henry I of Molenark (1225-38) and his successor, the powerful Conrad of Hostaden (1238-1261), who laid the corner-stone of the cathedral. The bloody battle of Worringen in 1288, in which the citizens of Cologne allied with Brabant took prisoner Archbishop Siegfried of Westerburg (1274-97), resulted in an almost complete freedom for the city; to regain his liberty, the archbishop recognized the political independence of Cologne, but reserved certain rights, notably the administration of justice.

A long period of peace with the outside world followed. Cologne joined the Hanseatic League in the thirteenth century, and became an imperial free city in the fourteenth. On the other hand internal dissensions frequently disturbed the city. After the close of the twelfth century the government of the city was in the hands of patrician families, who filled all the offices in the city government with members of their own order. In time the craft organizations (guilds) increased in strength and demanded a share in the government. As early as 1370, in the uprising of the weavers, they gained the upper hand for a short time, but it was not until 1396 that the rule of the patricians was finally abolished. On 14 September of that year the new democratic constitution was adopted, in accordance with which only representatives of the guilds sat in the city council. The last act of the patricians was the foundation of the university (1388), which rapidly began to prosper. By their firmness and wisdom the new rulers maintained themselves against the patricians, against Archbishop Dietrich of Mörs (1419), and against Charles the Bold, who, in alliance with Archbishop Ruprecht, sought to bring the city again under archiepiscopal rule. It also suppressed domestic uprisings (for instance in 1481 and 1512). Throughout this period the city retained its place as the first city of the German Empire, in which learning, the fine arts, and the art of printing were vigorously cultivated.

In the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century Cologne remained true to Catholic doctrine, thanks chiefly to the activity of the university, where such men as Cochlaeus, Ortwin Gratianus, Jacob of Hoogstraeten, and others taught. Under their influence, the city council held fast to Catholic tradition and energetically opposed the new doctrines, which found many adherents among the people and the clergy. Cologne remained a stronghold of the old beliefs, and gave active support to the Counter-Reformation, which found earnest champions in Johannes Gropper, the Jesuits, Saint Peter Canisius, and others. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were a time of decadence for the city; its importance diminished especially after the Thirty Years War (1618-48) in which it was loyal to the emperor and the empire, and was never captured. The university eventually lost its prestige, because through over-caution it opposed the most justifiable reforms; trade was diverted to other channels; only its ecclesiastical glory remained to the city, which was governed by a narrow-minded class of tradesmen and often suffered from the dissensions between council and citizens (in 1679-86 and the bloody troubles caused by Nicholas Guelich). The outbreak of the French Revolution found it a community with but slight power of resistance. The French entered Cologne, 26 October, 1794, and the citizens were soon severely oppressed by requisitions, forced loans, and contributions. On 27 September, 1797, the old city constitution was finally annulled, the French administrative organization established, and the city made a part of the French department of the Roer of which Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) was the capital. The university was discontinued in 1798; it had dragged out a miserable existence owing to the establishment of the University of Bonn and the confused policy of the last archbishop. After the downfall of French domination in Germany, Cologne was apportioned by the Congress of Vienna to the Kingdom of Prussia. It was made neither the seat of the government of the Rhenish Province, nor the seat of the university, but it was restored to its rank of metropolitan see, and in the nineteenth century, under Prussian rule became the third largest city of Prussia and attained unusual prosperity, economic, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.

Only brief ecclesiastical statistics can be given here. In 1907, besides the archbishop and assistant bishop, there were in Cologne 214 priests, of whom 24 were members of the cathedral chapter and 38 were parish priests, and 128 others engaged in pastoral occupations. There are 12 Dominicans and 9 Franciscans. The two deaneries of the city embrace 39 parish and 3 military churches; in addition to the 39 parish churches, there are 22 lesser churches and 26 chapels. Religious societies are numerous and powerful among more than 400 religious societies and brotherhoods we may mention: Societies of Saint Vincent, Saint Elizabeth, and Saint Charles Borromeo, Marian congregations for young men and for young women, rosary confraternities, Associations the Holy Childhood, Holy Family, of Christian Mothers, etc. Among the trades organization the most powerful are the four Catholic Gesellenvereine, with 4 hospices and 18 Catholic workingmens' unions. The male religious orders and congregations are represented by Dominicans, Franciscans, Alexian Brothers, Brothers of Charity, and Brothers of Saint Francis; the female orders and congregations by Sisters of Saint Benedict, the Borromean Sisterhood, the Cellites, Sisters of Saint Dominic, Sisters of Saint Francis, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus, the Ursuline Sisters, and Sisters of Saint Vincent; a total of 43 religious houses with about 1140 inmates. The Alexian Brothers, the Brothers of Charity, and the Brothers of Saint Francis, as well as almost all the female religious orders, conduct numerous charitable and educational institutions.

Among the churches of Cologne, the foremost is the cathedral, the greatest monument of Gothic architecture in Germany. Its cornerstone was laid by Archbishop Conrad of Hostaden, 14 August, 1248; the sanctuary was dedicated in 1322; the nave made ready for religious services in 1388; the southern tower was built to a height of about 180 feet in 1447; then the work of building was interrupted for almost four hundred years. During the French Revolution the cathedral was degraded to a hay barn. In the nineteenth century the work of building was resumed, thanks above all to the efforts of Sulpice Boisseree, who excited the enthusiasm of the Crown Prince, afterwards King Frederick William IV, for the completion of the work. The restoration was begun in 1823; in 1842 the Cathedral Building Society was founded, and generous contributions from all parts of Germany resulted. The interior was finished, 15 October, 1863, and opened for Divine service; and 15 October, 1880, the completion of the entire cathedral was appropriately celebrated in the presence of the German emperor. The whole edifice covers an area of about 7370 square yards; it has a nave 445 feet long, five aisles, and a transept 282 feet wide with three aisles; the height of the nave is about 202 feet, that of the two towers, 515 feet. Among the numerous works of art, the most famous are the picture (Dombild) painted by Stephen Lochner about 1450, the triptych over the high altar, the 96 choir seats of the sanctuary, and the shrine in which are kept the relics of the Three Kings in the treasury of the sacristy. The last is considered the most remarkable medieval example of the goldsmith's art extant. Among the other churches of the city, the most noteworthy of those dating from the Romanesque period are Saint Gereon, Saint Ursula, Saint Mary in the Capitol, Saint Pantaleon, and the church of the Apostles; from the Transition and the Gothic periods, Saint Cunibert, Saint Mary in Lyskirchen, the church of the Minorites; from more recent times, the Jesuit church, Saint Mary Pantaleon, and Saint Mauritius. The city contains about 25 charitable institutions under Catholic management.

THE ARCHBISHOPRIC

According to ancient legend a disciple of Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Cologne, but the first historically authenticated bishop was Saint Maternus, who was present in 314 at the Synod of Arles. Among the earliest bishops the most prominent are: Euphrates, who took part in the Council of Sardica (344) and in 346 was deposed as a heretic by a general synod of Gaul; Saint Severinus (347-400), Saint Cunibert (623-63?), councillor of the Frankish kings Dagobert and Sigibert; Anno I (711-15), who brought the remains of Saint Lambert from Maastricht to Liège; Saint Agilulfus (747-51); Hildebold (785-819), chancellor under Charlemagne and, in 799, first metropolitan of Cologne, whose suffragan sees were Liège, Utrecht, Muenster, Bremen, Osnabrueck, and, after 829, Minden. During the vacancy of the archiepiscopal office (842-50) Bremen was cut off from the Archdiocese of Cologne, in spite of the protests of Gunthar (850-71). Willibert (870-89) assisted Ludwig the German to overcome Charles the Bald, by which action the archbishopric became finally a part of the German Empire. Under Hermann I (890-924) Bremen was definitively separated from Cologne. In 954 Bruno I (953-65) was made Duke of Lorraine by his brother, the Emperor Otto the Great; in this way the foundation was laid for the temporal power of the archbishopric of Cologne. For though Bruno's successors did not inherit the ducal rank, they retained a considerable territory (the Kölngau, or district of Cologne), in time increased by the family possessions and acquisitions of many archbishops. Saint Heribert (999-1021) was very active in promoting the welfare of his diocese, was made chancellor for Italy by Otto III, and aided Henry II at the time of his expedition to Rome in 1004. Piligrim (1021-36), who accompanied Henry II and Conrad II on their expeditions to Italy, obtained for himself and for his successors the office of imperial chancellor for Italy. Hermann II (1036-56) was followed by Saint Anno II, who did much for the authority and honour of the See of Cologne; at the same time he was the first archbishop to come into open conflict with the city, now rapily growing in numbers and wealth.

As princes of the German Empire, the archbishops were very frequently involved in dissensions between popes and emperors, often to the injury of their Church, since they were frequently in opposition to the pope. Frederick I (1100-31) was the last Archbishop of Cologne to be invested with the episcopal ring and crosier; in 1111, during the three-days fight in the streets of Rome, he saved the Emperor Henry V from defeat, after his imprisonment of Pope Paschal II, but in 1114 abandoned the imperial party. His successor, Bruno II (1132-37), was again imperial chancellor for Italy, which office, after the incumbency of Arnold II of Wied (1151-56), was permanently attached to the Archbishop of Cologne. Rainald of Dassel (1159-67), the chancellor of Frederick Barbarossa, and Philip I of Heinsberg (1167-91) increased the prestige of the see; the latter prelate, after the fall of Henry the Lion, obtained as a fief for himself and his successors the western part of the Duchy of Saxony, under the title of Duke of Westphalia and Engern. One of the most energetic archbishops in the following years was Saint Engelbert. In his short reign (1216-21) he furthered the moral and religious life by several synods, and by the favour he showed the new orders of Franciscans and Dominicans; he also restored order within the limits of his see, and successfully opposed the continued efforts for civic independence. The long political conflict between the archbishops and the city, during which Conrad of Hostaden (1238-61) and Engelbert II of Falkenburg (1261-74) made many concessions was finally, as above stated, settled in favour of the city, under Siegfried of Westerburg (1274-97). The reconciliation of the archbishops with the city effected by Wikbold of Holte (1297-1304) brought with it increasing influence in the affairs of the German Empire. To the injury of his see, Henry II of Virneburg (1304-32) allied himself with Frederick the Handsome, while Walram of Juelich (1332-49) obtained many privileges from the Emperor Charles IV, whom he had raised to the imperial dignity against Louis of Bavaria. In his time the Black Death spread over Germany and entailed great misery. In 1356, under William of Gennep (1349-62), the dignity of imperial elector, recognized since about the middle of the thirteenth century as belonging to the archiepiscopal office, was formally acknowledged by the Golden Bull. Kuno of Falkenstein (1366-71), also Archbishop of Trier, added (1370) to the temporalities of the see the County of Arnsberg. After his resignation he was succeeded by Frederick III of Saarwerden (1370-1414), who adhered to Urban VI on the occasion of the Western Schism; after Urban's death he followed a vacillating policy. His successor, Dietrich II of Mörs (1414-63), sought to make Cologne the strongest territorial power in Western Germany, but he was unfortunate in his political enterprises, and brought a heavy burden of debt on his see. Under him the city of Soest was lost to Cologne. After his death, and before the appointment of a new archbishop, the cathedral chapter, the nobility (Ritterschaft) and the cities of the archiepiscopal state (Erzstift) concluded an agreement (Erblandsvereinigung) with regard to the archbishop's hereditary lands, whereby the prelate's rights as temporal lord were considered limited in the archepiscopal State, whose territory, it must be remembered, did not coincide with the ecclesiastical limits of the archdiocese. This agreement was henceforth sworn to by each archbishop at his election. Ruprecht von der Pfalz (1463-80) squandered the revenues of the see, sought by force to gain control of the cities and castles previously mortgaged, and thereby entered into conflicts with the holders of the mortgages. Violence, arson, and devastation visited the diocese in consequence. In 1478 Ruprecht was captured and remained a prisoner until his death. His successor, Hermann IV of Hesse, devoted his energy to the restoration of order, paid a part of the public debt, and, by the diocesan synod of 1483, whose decrees he vigorously enforced, furthered the intellectual and moral elevation of clergy and people. Philip II of Daun (1508-15) walked in the footsteps of his predecessor.

The government of Hermann V of Wied (1515-47) brought trouble and disaster on his see. At the Diet of Worms he at first opposed the religious doctrines of Luther. He urged the banning of the Reformer and held a provincial synod in 1536; gradually, however, he turned away from the Catholic Faith, chose adherents of Luther for his counsellors, and allowed the new doctrines to be preached in his diocese. When he openly favoured the spread of Protestantism, he was suspended in 1546, and forced to resign (1547). By the advice of excellent men, such as Gropper, Billick, and others, Adolph III of Schauenburg (1546-56) took strong measures against the preachers brought in by Hermann, and published vigorous decrees against immoral priests. His brother Anton (1556-58) followed a similar course. Under Johann Gebhard of Mansfeld (1558-62) Utrecht ceased to be a suffragan of Cologne, and the Deanery of Zyfflich was incorporated with the newly founded See of Roermond. After the brief reign of Frederick IV of Wied (1562-67) and that of the vigorous Salentin of Isenburg (1567-77), who resigned because he did not wish to take priest's orders, Gebhard II Truchsess of Waldburg, succeeded to the office. He followed the evil course of Hermann of Wied. At first loyal to the Church, he became a Calvinist in 1582, owing to his passion for Agnes von Mansfeld, and sought to Protestantize the see in 1583; he was put under the ban of the empire and deposed, and Duke Ernest of Bavaria chosen as his successor. With Protestant aid Gebhard sought to keep possession of his diocese. But the War of Cologne (Kölnischer Krieg), which lasted five years, and brought untold misery on the land, ended in victory for the Catholic party. These attempts of Hermann of Wied and Gebhard to alienate the archdiocese from the Catholic Faith led to the establishment of a permanent papal nunciature in Cologne which existed from 1584 to the extinction of the archiepiscopal State at the end of the eighteenth century (see NUNCIO; SECULARIZATION).

Ernest of Bavaria (1583-1612) was the first of the five princes of the house of Wittelsbach who held the Electorate of Cologne until 1761. Ferdinand of Bavaria (1612-50), Maximilian Henry (1650-88), Joseph Clemens (1688-1723), and Clemens Augustus I (1727-61) succeeded him. Following the tradition of their princely house, these five archbishops were intensely loyal to the Church, and upheld Catholicism in the archdiocese, which, however, had lost 122 parishes in consequence of the Reformation. However, in consequence of the repeated union of several bishoprics in the hands of these Bavarian prelates, the political administration of the territory was held to be of primary, its religious government of secondary, importance. Moreover, the foreign policy of these five Bavarian archbishops was not always fortunate. By their alliance with France, especially during the Spanish and Austrian Wars of Succession, they furthered the political dissolution of the old German Empire (begun in the Thirty Years War) and encouraged the anti-Hapsburg policy of France which aimed at the final overthrow of the German imperial power. Similarly, their friendly relations to France favoured the introduction of rationalism into Cologne. This spirit of opposition to the Church and to the authority of the popes had a still stronger hold upon Archbishop Maximilian Frederick of Königseck (1761-84). In 1771 he founded an academy at Bonn in opposition to the loyal Catholic University of Cologne, and in 1781 issued in favour of the new academy an order according to which attendance at the University of Cologne was punished by inability to hold any office, either ecclesiastical or civil, in the diocese. The last Elector of Cologne, Maximilian Francis of Austria (1785-1801), took part in the anti-papal Congress of Ems (q. v.), nominated Eulogius Schneider as professor in the Academy of Bonn, which he raised to the rank of a University in 1786, and instituted reforms similar to those enacted by his brother, the Emperor Joseph II, in Austria. As brother of Marie Antoinette, he was at first opposed to the French Revolution, but soon adopted a policy of inactivity which ultimately resulted in the loss of independence both by the city and the electorate. At the approach of the victorious French army the elector left his residence at Bonn, never to see it again. The French entered Cologne, 26 October, 1794, and Bonn, 8 November. The conquered territory between the Meuse, the Rhine, and the Moselle was divided into four departments governed by a civil commissioner at Mainz, and incorporated with France by the Peace of Luneville in 1801. In 1796 all the ecclesiastical property in the part of the archdiocese held by the French was seized by the civil authority; in 1802 all religious orders and congregations were suppressed, and their property confiscated. By the Concordat of 1801 between the Apostolic See and Napoleon I, nearly all of the former archdiocese on the left bank of the Rhine was given to the newly founded See of Aachen. The old ecclesiastical organization remained undisturbed in the archdiocesan territory on the right bank of the Rhine. After the death of Maximilian Francis (1801), the cathedral chapter, which had taken refuge in Arnsberg, chose the Austrian Archduke Anthony as his successor, but he never occupied his see, owing to Prussian opposition. In 1803 the remainder of the electorate was secularized, an inglorious end for the ancient Archbishopric of Cologne. The loss to the Catholic Church in Germany was great. The archbishopric, i.e., the territory in which the archbishop was also temporal ruler, included in its Rhenish territory alone (without Westphalia) 60 square miles and about 199,000 inhabitants (in 1797), of whom 180,000 were on the left bank of the Rhine.

In 1750 the archdiocese contained 860 parishes with as many parish churches, 300 benefices, 400 chapels, 42 collegiate chapters, 21 abbeys (10 Benedictine, 4 Premonstratensian, 7 Cistercian), 5 Benedictine provostships, 18 Minorite and 24 Franciscan monasteries, 2 Franciscan houses of the Third Order. There were also 20 Capuchin houses, 6 Dominican, 3 Carthusian, 11 Augustinian, 8 of Knights of the Cross, 9 Jesuit (suppressed in 1773), 2 Servite, and 2 Alexian. The Brothers of Saint Anthony, the Carmelites, the Zionites, the Brothers of Saint Martin had each one house. There were five establishments of the Teutonic Order and nine of the Knights of Malta. The female orders had a total of 146 nunneries (see below, Mooren, II1, 426 sqq.). The loss in costly gold and silver church plate, vestments and the treasures of the libraries and archives, is incalculable. When the disorders of the Napoleonic regime had passed, the archdiocese was re-established by Pius VII. Its territory had previously been made a part of Prussia by the Congress of Vienna, in 1815. On 16 July, 1821, by the Bull "De Salute animarum" the Archdiocese of Aachen was abolished, the church of St. Peter in Cologne was again made a metropolitan church, and the territories of the Archdiocese of Cologne defined anew, with its present boundaries, except for a few unimportant changes. It then included 44 deaneries and 685 parishes (536 on the left bank of the Rhine and 149 on the right bank). On the 20th of December, 1824, Ferdinand August von Spiegel was named by the pope as the first archbishop of the new see; on 20 May, 1825, he took charge of the ecclesiastical government, which had been carried on by the vicar capitular, Johann Hermann Joseph von Caspars zu Weiss, from 1801 till his death (1822), and after that time by Prothonotary Johann Wilhelm Schmitz. Archbishop von Spiegel's administration (1824-35) was in many ways beneficial. He alleviated many evils which had crept in during the previous years and made serious efforts for the education of the clergy and for the reorganization of his diocese; nevertheless, he was too subservient to the Prussian Government, and entered into a secret agreement with it in regard to mixed marriages, contrary to the spirit of the ecclesiastical marriage laws. His successor, Clemens Augustus, Freiherr von Droste zu Vischering, who vigorously opposed the spread of the Hermesian heresy, soon came into conflict with the Prussian Government on the question of mixed marriages, as a result of which he was taken prisoner, 20 November, 1837, and confined in the castle of Minden. This event caused great excitement throughout Germany, and helped to revive the religious life and activity of the German Catholics. When Frederick William IV came to the throne, the archbishop resigned his office in favour of his coadjutor, Johann von Geissel, Bishop of Speyer. As archbishop (1845-64), he displayed a most auspicious activity and infused fresh religious vigour into his diocese. Great injury was done the Church of Cologne by the Prussian Kulturkampf. During its course Archbishop Paul Melchers (1866-85) was imprisoned by the Government in 1874 (till 9 October), and then was forced to leave his diocese. The number of priests fell from 1947 to about 1500, and many parishes remained for years without a priest. After the conclusion of peace between Rome and Prussia, Archbishop Melchers abdicated his see. His successors, Philip Krementz (1885-99; cardinal, 1893), Hubert Simar (1899-1902), and Anton Fischer (since 6 November, 1902; cardinal since 22 June, 1903) devoted themselves to repairing the evil done by the Kulturkampf and developing to a prosperous state the religious and ecclesiastical life of the diocese.

STATISTICS

The Archdiocese of Cologne includes the Prussian administrative districts of Cologne and Aachen, the greater part of the district of Düsseldorf and small portions of the districts of Coblenz, Trier, and Arnsberg, altogether, 4219 square miles, with about 2,700,000 Catholics (census of 1 December, 1900, 2,522,648). The parishes in 1907 numbered 917, with 51 deaneries; the priests included 1934 secular priests (of whom 214 were stationed in the cathedral city), 208 regulars, and about 60 priests from other dioceses. The metropolitan chapter consists of 1 cathedral, provost (Domprobst), 1 cathedral dean (Domdechant), 10 residential, and 4 honorary canons. The archbishop is chosen by the cathedral chapter, the Bishops of Trier, Münster, and Paderborn are his suffragans. Within the city of Cologne there are 39 parishes and 3 military churches grouped in two deaneries. In addition to the cathedral chapter there is a collegiate chapter at Aachen. The educational institutions under ecclesiastical control include the archiepiscopal seminary for priests at Cologne, with 83 students (1906-07), the Collegium Albertinum at Bonn (175 students), the Collegium Leoninum at Bonn (104 students), the archiepiscopal seminaries for boys at Neuss, Muenstereifel, Rheinbach, and Opladen, 4 high schools and boarding-colleges for boys, and 26 boarding-schools for girls (the latter conducted by female orders). For the higher education of the clergy there is the Catholic faculty of theology at the University of Bonn, with 14 ecclesiastical professors, in addition to the (Cologne) seminary for priests already mentioned. Ecclesiastical teachers are also employed at 102 secondary schools (gymnasia, technical gymnasia, high schools, academies, and Latin schools, etc.), and 5 Catholic teachers' seminaries, at 42 Catholic girls' high schools and 5 Catholic training schools for women teachers. The total attendance at all the intermediate and higher schools of the archdiocese averages almost 17,400 Catholic boys and 11,700 Catholic girls. The total attendance at the primary schools (Volksschulen) is 428,000 children in 11,560 classes. (For the educational relations between the Church and the State see PRUSSIA.)

The religious orders of men in the archdiocese have 42 establishments with about 1100 members, and the orders and congregations of women have 401 with 6200 sisters, there being in the cathedral city alone 43 religious houses with 1140 inmates. The following orders or congregations are represented: Benedictines (1 establishment), Dominicans (2), Franciscans (9), Camillians (1), Capuchins (2), Carthusians (1), Redemptorists (2), Trappists (1), Fathers of the Holy Ghost and Immaculate Heart of Mary (2), Alexian Brothers (9), Brothers of Charity (6), Brothers of Saint Francis (6), Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (3), Borromean Sisters (18), Cellites (86) Sisters of Christ (4), Congregation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Saint Peter Fourier (1), Handmaids of Christ (69), Sisters of Saint Dominic (10), Order of Saint Elizabeth (35), Sisters of Saint Francis (96), Ladies of the Good Shepherd (3), Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus (10), Carmelite Sisters (3), Daughters of the Holy Cross (15), Sisters of Christian Charity (4), Penitent Recollects (1), School Sisters of Notre Dame (2), Ursulines (9), Sisters of Saint Vincent (31). The orders of men are devoted partly to pastoral and mission work, partly to charitable work; the orders of women devote themselves almost entirely either to educational work (instruction and care of young girls in various establishments, sewing schools, girls' high schools, and boarding-schools) or to charitable work in refuges, working-women's homes, servant-girls' homes, the care of the sick in hospitals, hospices, etc.

It is impossible to mention here all the numerous charities and organizations found within the limits of the archdiocese; complete statistics are given in M. Brandt's book, "Die katholischen Wohlthätigkeits-Anstalten und Vereine sowie das katholischsociale Vereinswesen ins besondere in der Erzdiöcese Köln" (Cologne, 1896). In the cathedral city alone there are more than 400 religious societies and brotherhoods. The most important of the organizations and charitable institutions in the archdiocese which are not limited to a single parish are as follows: 182 congregations and 71 societies for young men, 160 Catholic working-men's clubs, 74 Catholic journeymen's associations (Gesellenvereine), 26 miners' associations, 29 congregations and societies of merchants, 10 societies for women employed in stores, 55 homes and schools for working-women, 22 homes for the insane and idiots, 10 homes for servant girls, 9 refuges for fallen women, 90 orphanages; also the Elizabeth societies and 225 conferences of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, the Saint Regis societies, and others.

The most important churches are the cathedral (Dom) of Cologne (see above), the cathedral of Aachen, the churches at Cologne mentioned above, the cathedral churches at Bonn and Essen, the church of Saint Quirinus in Neuss, the churches of the former Abbots of Werden, Knechtsteden, Cornelimünster, and Steinfeld, the double church in Schwarz-Rheindorf, etc.

A complete bibliography of the city by KRUDEWIG is given in Die Kunstdenkmaeler der Stadt Köln (Düsseldorf, 1906), I, Pt. I The most important works are: BIANCO, Die alte Universitaet Köln (Cologne, 1855), I; KEUSSEN, Die Matrikel der Universitaet Köln (Bonn, 1892); ENNEN, Frankreich und der Niederrhein oder Geschichte von Stadt und Kurstaat Köln siet dem 30 jahrigen Kriege (2 vols., Cologne, 1855-56); IDEM, Geschichte der Stadt Köln (5 vols., Cologne and Neuss, 1863-80); Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Köln, ed. by EENNEN and ECKERTZ (6 vols., Cologne, 1860-79); Chronikender deutschen Staedte, vols. XII-XIV (Leipzig, 1875-77); Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln (32 vols., Cologne, 1883-1904); Kölner Schreinsurkunden des 12. Jahrhunderts, ed. by HOENIGER (2 vols., Bonn, 1884-94); HOEHLBAUM-LAU, Das Buch Weinsberg, Kölner Denkwuerdigkeiten aus den 16. Jahrhundert (4 vols., Leipzig and Bonn, 1886-98); Köln und seine Bauten (Cologne, 1888); MOHR, Die Kirchen von Köln (Berlin, 1889); KORTH, Köln in Mittelalter (Cologne, 1891), good bibliography; STEIN, Akten zur Geschichte der Verfassung und Verwaltung der Stadt Köln in 14. und 15. Jahrhundert (2 vols., Bonn, 1893-95); MERLO, Kölnische Kuenstler in alter und neuer Zeit (Düsseldorf, 1895); SCHIEBLER AND ALDENHOVEN, Geschichte der Kölner Malerschule (2 vols.. with 100 photogravures, Luebeck, 1894-96); KNIPPING, Die Kölner Stadtrechnungen des Mittelalters (2 vols., Bonn, 1897-98); LAU, Die Entwicklung der kommunalen Verfassung und Verwaltung der Stadt Köln bis zum Jahre 1396 (Bonn, 1898); HELMKEN, Köln und seine Sehenswuerdigkeiten (20th ed., Cologne, 1903); H. v. LOESCH, Kölner Zunfturkunden (2 vols., Bonn, 1905); KEUSSEN, Historische Topographie der Stadt Köln in Mittelalter (Bonn, 1906); STEFFENS, Kölner Kirchenkalender fuer das Jahr 1907 (Cologne, 1907). For the cathedral consult: BOISSEREE, Geschichte und Beschreibung des Doms zu Köln (2nd ed., Munich, 1842); BOCK, Der Kunst- und Reliquienschatz des Kölner Doms (Cologne and Neuss, 1870); SCHMITZ, Der Dom zu Köln (150 tables, with text by ENNEN, Cologne, 1868-76); WIETHASE, Der Dom zu Köln (40 plates with text, Frankfurt, 1884-1889); HELMKEN, Der Dom zu Köln (4th ed., Cologne, 1899); LINDNER, Der Dom zu Köln (plates, Haarlem, 1904).

The older sources and works that treat of the Archdiocese of Cologne are given by WALTER in Das alte Erzstift und die Reichsstadt Köln (Bonn, 1866), 3-18. Full bibliographical references, especially for the individual archbishops, are found in the Handbuch der Erzdioecese Keoln (4th ed., Cologne, 1905), also the list of the assistant bishops, general vicars, and nuncios of Cologne. The most important works of reference are: BINTERIM AND MOOREN, Die alte und neue Erzdioecese Köln (4 vols., Mainz, 1828-30; 2d ed. in 2 vols., Düsseldorf, 1892-93); LACOMBLET, Urkundenbuch fuer die Geschichte des Niederrheins (4 vols., Düsseldorf, 1840-58); LACOMBLET, Archiv fuer die Geschichte des Niederrheins (7 vols., Düsseldorf, 1832-70); SIEBERTZ, Urkundenbuch fuer Landes- und Rechtsgeschichte des Herzogtums Westfalen (3 vols., Arnsberg, 1839-54); MERING AND REISCHERT, Die Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe von Köln (2 vols., Cologne, 1842-44); BINTERIM, Die geistlichen Gerichteinder Erzdioecese Köln (Düsseldorf, 1849); ENNEN, Geschichte der Reformation im Bereiche der alten Erzdioecese Köln (Cologne, 1849); KAMPSCHULTE, Kirchlich-politische Statistik des vormals zur Erzdioecese Köln gehoerigen Westfalen (Lippstadt, 1869); PODLECH, Geschichte der Erzdioecese Köln (Mainz, 1879); DUMONT, Descriptio Archidioecesis Coloniensis (Cologne, 1879); IDEM, Geschichte der Pfarreien der Erzdioecese Köln (Cologne, 1883- 1900), I-X; LEY, Die koelnische Kirchengeschichte im Anschluss an die Geschichte der koelnischen Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe (Cologne, 1883); Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinprovinz (Bonn, 1894-1901); KLEINERMANNS, Die Heiligen auf den bishoeflichen bzw. erzbischoeflichen Stuhle von Köln (Cologne, 1895), I; JANSEN, Die Herzogsgewalt der Erzbischoefe von Köln in Westfalen (Munich, 1895); KNIEPING, Die Regesten der Erzbischoefe von Köln im Mittelalter (vol. II., Bonn, 1900; vol. III in press, 1907); SAUERLAND, Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte der Rheinlande aus dem vatikanischen Archiv (vol. I-III., Bonn, 1902-05; vol. IV in press, 1907); KORTH, Die Patrocinien der Kirchen und Kapellen im Erzbistum Köln (Düsseldorf, 1904); Kunstdenkmaeler der Rheinproivinz (Düsseldorf, 1891-); Bau- und Kunstdenkmaeler von Westfalen (Paderborn, 1893-); WOLF, Aus Kurkoeln im 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1906); EWALD, Die Siegel der Erzbischoefe von Köln 948-1795 (Bonn, 1906); Westfaelisches Urkundenbuch, vol. III, Die Urkunden des kolnischen Westfalen vom Jahre 1200- 1300 (Muenster, 18__-1907). For the Reformation period see: DROUVEN, Die Reformation in der koelnischen Kirchenprovinz zur Zeit Hermanns V. von Wied (Bonn, 1876); LOSSEN, Der koelnische Krieg (I, Gotha, 1882; II, Munich, 1897), also Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland (Pt. I, Paderborn, 1895 and 1899; Pt. III, vols. I and II, Berlin, 1892 and 1894). The most important periodicals are: Annalen des historischen Vereins fuer den Niederrhein ins besondere die alte Erzdioecese Köln (at present 83 vols., Cologne, 1855-). Jahrbuecher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinland (Bonn, 1842-); Westdeutsche Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte und Kunst (Trier, 1882-), with supplementary volumes.

JOSEPH LINS

University of Cologne

Though famous all through the Middle Ages for its cathedral and cloister schools and for eminent scholars -- Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus -- Cologne had no university until near the end of the fourteenth century, when Urban VI, at the instance of the Town Council, issued (21 May, 1388) the Bull of foundation. The university was inaugurated the following year with twenty-one magistri and 737 matriculated students. Further privileges were granted by Boniface IX (1389, 1394), Duke Wilhelm von Geldern (1396), and Emperor Frederick III (1442); while special favour was shown the university by Gregory XII (1406), Nicholas V (1447), and Pius II; the last-named Pope addressed his "Bull of Retractation" (In minoribus agentes) to the Rector and University of Cologne (26 April, 1463). The university was represented at the Councils of Constance and Basle, and was involved in the controversy regarding the authority of council and pope. It took sides with the antipope Felix V, but eventually submitted to Nicholas V. The Renaissance movement met with opposition at Cologne, though among its professors were the humanists Caesarius, Buschius, Glareanus, Gratius, Phrissemius, and Sobius. During the same period may be mentioned the theologians Arnold of Tongres and Hoogstraaten, O.P. All these were involved in the conflict which centred about Reuchlin (q.v.) and which did the university great harm. The "Epistolae obscurorum virorum" were directed against the theologians of Cologne. At the time of the Reformation, but few of the professors joined the Protestant movement; the university as a whole was strong in its defence of the Catholic Faith and some of its students, as Cochlaeus and Eck, were afterwards foremost champions of the Church. Failing on the other hand to introduce the reforms needed in its own work and organization, the university declined rapidly during the sixteenth century. The vicissitudes of war, lack at means, and withdrawal of its students reduced it to a nominal existence in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1786 the founding of the University of Bonn (q.v.) decided the fate of Cologne, which was unable to withstand its more vigorous rival. The French troops entered Cologne in October, 1794; in April, 1796, the university was closed.

RASHDALL, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895, II, 25); BIANCO, Die alte Universitaet Koeln (Cologne, 1855), KEUSSEN, Die Matrikel d. Universitaet Koeln 1389 bis 1559 (Bonn, 1892); DENIFLE, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1885).

E.A. PACE

Blessed Colomba of Rieti

Born at Rieti in Umbria, Italy, 1467; died at Perugia, 1501. Blessed Colomba of Rieti is always called after her birthplace, though she actually spent the greater part of her life away from it. Her celebrity is based -- as it was eve n in her lifetime -- mainly on two things: the highly miraculous nature of her career from its very beginning, and her intense devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. She was one amongst a number of saintly Dominican women who seem to have been expressly raised up by God in protest against, and as a sharp contrast to, the irreligion and immorality prevalent in Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. These women, nearly all of the Third Order, had an intense devotion to St. Catherine of Siena, and ma de it their aim to imitate her as nearly as possible. Many seculars, men as well as women, shared this devotion, amongst these being Ercole I, Duke of Ferrara, who had a deep admiration for Colomba and for some other holy Dominican religious, her contemp oraries, the most notable of whom were Blessed Osanna of Mantua and Blessed Lucy of Narni. For the latter Ercole's veneration was so great that he never rested until he had got her to come with some of her nuns to live in Ferrara, where he built her a co nvent and where she died after many troubles. She began when quite a girl to practise austere penances and to subsist almost entirely on the supernatural food of the Holy Eucharist, and continued this for the greater part of her life. At nineteen she jo ined the Dominican Tertiaries, of whom there were many in town, though still living at home; and she soon won the veneration of her fellow townspeople by her personal holiness as well as by some miracles that she worked. But Colomba was not destined to r emain in Rieti. In 1488 she left home and went to Perugia, where the inhabitants recieved her as a saint, and in the course of time built her the convent of St. Catherine, in which she assembled all the Third Order Dominicanesses, who desired her as superior in spite of her youth. In 1494, when a terrible plague was raging in Perugia, she offered herself as victim for the city. The plague was stayed, but Colomba herself was struck down by the scourge. She recovered only to save her sanctity severly tried by widely spread calumnies, which reached Rome, whence a commssion was sent to examine into her life. She was treated for some time as an imposter, and desposed from her office of prioress; but finally her innocence triumphed. In 1495 Alexander VI, having heard of Colomba's holiness and miracles from his son the Cardinal Caesar Borgia, who had been living in Perugia, went himself to the city and saw her. She is said to have gone into ecstasy at his feet, and also to have boldy told him of all personal sin s. The pope was fully satisfied of her great sanctity, and set the seal of approval on her mode of life. In the year of 1499 she was consulted, by authorities who were examining into the manner, concerning the stigmata of Blessed Lucy of Narni, and spok e warmly in favour of their being genuine, and of her admiration for Blessed Lucy's holiness. Her relics are still venerated at Perugia, and her feast is kept by her order on 20 May.

F.M. CAPES

Colombia

(Republic of Colombia; formerly United States of Colombia)

Colombia forms the north-west corner of the South American Continent. It is bounded on the north by the Caribbean Sea, on the east by Venezuela, on the south by Brazil and Peru, on the south-west by Ecuador. The Pacific Ocean bounds it on the west and on the north-west the Republic of Panama and the Gulf of Darien. Its area is variously calculated at from 450,000 to about 500,000 square miles, but exact data are not obtainable. Colombia has at least eleven active or dormant volcanoes, the tallest of which, Huila, rises to about 19,000 feet and seems to be the highest point in the country. Almost on the Caribbean shores are the mud-volcanoes of Turbaco. The republic is highly favoured by nature in most parts of its territory, and capable of producing nearly every staple. It is very rich in useful tropical plants. The animal kingdom, too, is far better represented than farther south along the Pacific coast. The climate shows all possible varieties, from the moist heat of the lowlands to the bitter cold of the mountain wastes.

Since 1870 no census of the population has been attempted. To-day the number of inhabitants is variously estimated, four millions being a likely conjecture. One estimate (made in 1904) gives 3,917,000 souls; another, two years later, 4,680,000, of which 4,083,000 for the sixteen departments, 120,000 for the federal district, and 427,000 for the intendancies. Four-fifths at least of this population resides in the mountainous western half, the eastern lowlands being mostly held by wild Indian bands. The number of aborigines is given at about 150,000, without reliable basis, however, for this estimate. The most populous city is Bogotá, situated at an altitude of 9000 feet above the sea, with 85,000 inhabitants; Medellin, in the department of Antioquia (4600 feet above the sea) comes next, with 50,000 souls, then Barranquilla, Colombia's most active seaport, with 32,000 (later accounts say 55,000). Negroes and mulattoes are numerous, and mestizos form a large proportion of the people. In the mountains the pure Indian has been reduced by amalgamation to a small proportion of the inhabitants and most of the aboriginal stocks have completely disappeared as such. Near the Gulf of Maracaibo the Goajiros still maintain autonomy, but the Tayronas, Panches, Musos, are practically extinct. Around Bogotá there are descendants of the Chibchas (q.v.), a sedentary tribe once of considerable numerical importance, for aborigines.

HISTORY

The earliest information concerning the territory which was to become in the nineteenth century the Republic of Colombia goes back to the year 1500 and comes down to us from Rodrigo de Bastidas and Alonzo de Ojeda. But even a few months before these explorers, Christoval Guerra and Pero Alonzo Nino had coasted Venezuela and, possibly, the northern shores of Colombia, gathering pearls and gold. Bastidas saw the snowy range of Santa Marta in 1500, and Ojeda settled on the coast near by. The Spanish colonies on the Isthmus of Darien (since 1903, the Republic of Panama, but previously a province of Colombia) and the discovery of the South Sea by Balboa directed the course of explorations of Colombia to its north-western and Pacific sections. The banks of large rivers, Atrato, Cauca, and Magdalena, were also explored and conquered at an early period. The valleys, especially that of the Cauca, were inhabited by comparatively numerous agricultural tribes, who also gathered gold by washing and worked it into figures, ornaments, and sometimes vessels. Much of the precious metal was found in graves. The Indians of Antioquia, Ancerma, Cali, and Lile, though living in villages, were cannibals, and wars of extermination had to be waged against them. The languages of these peoples have wellnigh disappeared, as well as the tribes themselves, and their classification in four principal groups, Catios, Nutabes, Tahamies, and Yamacies (of which the first two held both banks of the Cauca), requires confirmation. In western Colombia the Spaniards penetrated to the northern confines of Ecuador (Pasto, Popayan) comparatively early, and there met other explorers from their own people coming up from Quito. This led to strife and even to bloodshed.

The valley of the Magdalena formed the natural route to the interior. The Indian tribes around, and to the south of, the Santa Marta Mountains (Chimilas, Panches, Tayronas, Musos) were of a sedentary and warlike character, and offered a protracted resistance. It seems that they belonged to the linguistic stock of the Chibcha (or Muysca), and considerable gold was found among them, chiefly in burial places. Up to 1536, Tamalameque (about 9 degrees N. lat.) had been the most southern point reached from Santa Marta. In the beginning of that year, however, an important expedition was set on foot under the command of Pedro Fernandez de Lugo, with the object of penetrating into the unknown mountains to the south. Lugo soon died, but his lieutenant Gonzalo Ximenes de Quesada persevered, and reached the plateau, where he found the numerous tribes of the Chibcha established in formal settlements, and rich in gold and in emeralds obtained from the country of the Musos where they are still obtained. By August, 1538, Cundinamarca (by which name the Chibcha range is mostly known) was occupied by Quesada after considerable warfare with the natives, and the city of Santa Fé de Bogotá was founded as capital of the "Kingdom of New Granada", which continued the official designation of Colombia until its independence was achieved. Upon the conquest of the Chibcha country followed expeditions to the east and south-east, in quest of the "Gilded Man" (el Dorado) with little more than geographical results. These expeditions led towards the region now forming the Republic of Venezuela.

The establishment of a German administration in Venezuela, by the Welser family, in 1529, also led the Spaniards and Germans into Colombia from the East. Ambrosius Dalfinger (1529-32) reached Tamalameque and, in 1538, when Quesada was beginning to organize his recent conquest at Bogotá, he was surprised by the arrival of a force from Venezuela commanded by the German leader Nicolas Federmann. Shortly after this another body of Spaniards reached the plateau of Cundinamarca from the Cauca Valley. This was the expedition headed by Sebastian Belalcazar of Quito. Each of the three commanders having acted independently, each claimed the territory as his conquest, but Quesada succeeded in buying his rivals off, and remained master of the field, thus avoiding bloodshed.

New Granada, under its own audiencia established in 1563, formed part of the Spanish viceroyalty of Peru until 1718, was then severed from Peru for four years, then again placed under an audiencia, and finally, in 1751, constituted a separate viceroyalty. During the seventeenth century, the ports of the Colombian coast were exposed to the formidable attacks of pirates. In 1671 the notorious Morgan took Panama and sacked it, and the most horrible cruelties were committed upon its inhabitants. Two years later it was the turn of Santa Marta. In 1679 the French Baron de Pointe took and pillaged Cartagena (founded 1510). Religious strife, too, between the secular and some of the regular clergy, and between the bishops and the civil authorities, troubled Cartagena, Popayan, and other dioceses. Extreme measures of taxation, exorbitant duties, provoked a popular uprising in 1781. The country remained in a state of ferment, which was aggravated by the downfall of Spain before the power of Napoleon. Miranda made in 1806 an attempt at insurrection, directed in the first instance against Venezuela, but threatening New Granada as well, had it succeeded. On 20 July, 1810, a revolutionary junta met at Bogotá, and in the following year "The United Provinces of New Granada" were proclaimed. These embraced also Venezuela and Ecuador, and soon two parties appeared, among the revolutionists, so that, previous to 1816, three civil wars had taken place. Bolivar, who appeared on the scene in 1810, was unable to establish harmony. Spain could do almost nothing to recover its colonies until 1815, when a respectable force under General Morillo landed in Venezuela. this united the factions again, and for five years a war of extermination was carried on in the three states. During that period the Republic of Colombia was proclaimed, in 1819. The revolutionists suffered many reverses, for Morillo was an able military leader. Of the actions fought in this bloody war, that at Sogamoso (12 June, 1819) decided the fate of the remnants of the Spanish army, and the engagement at Carabobo, near Valencia in Venezuela (24 June, 1821), was the last of any consequence. The Republics of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela became united under the name of Colombia. In 1829, however, Ecuador and Venezuela seceded, and Colombia was left alone.

In 1831 Colombia became "The Republic of New Granada". Thirty years later it called itself "United States of Colombia". In 1886, the "sovereign states" were reduced to departments of a "centralized republic" styled "The Republic of Colombia", under which name it is known to exist to-day. No country of Spanish America has been, since its independence, so often and so violently disturbed, internally, as Colombia. With a single exception (Parra, 1876-80), every presidential term has been marked by one or more bloody revolutions. Panama seceded for a while, in 1856. The events of 1903 made the separation between Colombia and Panama definitive. Since 1904, conditions seem to have at last become more settled. Reorganization, after so many periods of disruption and anarchy, seems to be the aim of the present Government of Colombia.

Hardly was the territory now known as the Republic of Colombia discovered, when the Church, working in accord with the King of Spain, hastened to the natives. In spite of the honest intentions of the Spanish kings, their agents were in many cases obstacles to the religious progress of the country. What progress was attained was due to the efforts of the Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, and other missionaries. This great work was often opposed by the colonists and government officials who looked solely to their own worldly prosperity. The religious of the Society of Jesus, with whose history the name of the Colombian city of Cartagena is so gloriously associated (see PETER CLAVER, SAINT), were also the first during the colonial period to found colleges for secondary instruction; eight or ten colleges were opened in which the youth of the country, and the sons of the Spaniards, were educated. In the Jesuit College of Bogotá the first instruction in mathematics and physics was given. In the expulsion of the Jesuits by Charles III the Church in New Granada lost her principal and most efficacious aid to the civilization of the country, which was practically paralysed for many years. To this day the traveller may see the effects of this arbitrary act in the immense plains of the regions of the Casanare, converted in the space of one century into pasture lands for cattle, but which were once a source of great wealth, and which would have been even more so.

It is only within the last ten years that the Catholic Church, owing to the peace and liberty which she now enjoys, has turned her eyes once more to Casanare; a vicariate Apostolic has been erected there, governed by a bishop of the Order of St. Augustine, who with the members of his order labours among the savages and semi-savages of these plains.

PRESENT CONDITIONS

The legislative power of the nation is vested in a Congress consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senators are elected for six years. Each senator had two substitutes elected with him. Every department is entitled to three senators, and the whole body is renewed, upon the completion of the term of service of one-third of its members, every two years. One representative and two substitutes correspond to a population of 50,000, and their term of office is four years. Congress, besides legislation, has power to interfere with the action of the executive in matters of contracts and treaties. The executive is headed by the president, who has a vice-president and a substitute (or designado); the last takes office in case both president and vice-president become incapacitated. While the presidential term has varied from six to four years, the actual incumbent (1908), Rafael Reyes, is in possession of the office for ten years. There is a cabinet of ministers and a consultative body called the "Council of State", composed of six members with the vice-president at its head. The president appoints the members of the Supreme Court for life, or during good behaviour. The judicial districts have their superior as well as inferior courts. Courts of Commerce may be instituted when necessary, and trial by jury obtains in criminal cases. The Constitution of 1886, amended in 1904 and 1905, explicitly provides (Art. 38) that "the Catholic Apostolic Roman Religion is that of the Nation; the public authorities will protect it and cause it to be respected as an essential element of the social order. It being understood that the Catholic Church is not and shall not be official, and shall preserve its independence". The next following article guarantees to all persons freedom from molestation "on account of religious opinions", and Art. 40 lays it down that "the exercise of all cults not contrary to Christian morality or the laws is permitted". A concordat, entered into between the Holy See and the Republic of Colombia in 1887, now regulates in detail the relations between Church and State. These relations are at present (1908) thoroughly cordial, while dissenters are in no way interfered with on account of their religious peculiarities. The ecclesiastical organization of Colombia consists of four provinces: Bogotá, with four suffragans, Ibague, Nueva Pamplona, Socorro, and Tunja; Cartagena, with two suffragans, Santa Marta and Panama; Medellin, with two suffragans, Antioquia and Manziales; and Popayan, with two suffragans, Garzon and Pasto. There are also two vicariates Apostolic: Casanare and Gajira; and three prefectures Apostolic: Caqueta, Piani di S. Martino, and Intendenza Orientale. (see BOGOTÁ, CARTAGENA, etc.)

Article 41 of the Constitution provides that "public education shall be organized and directed in accordance with the Catholic Religion. Primary instruction at the expense of the public funds shall be gratuitous and not obligatory." There are no educational statistics attainable of any recent date. In 1897 it was stated there were 2026 colleges and primary schools with 143,076 pupils. Of private educational establishments no data exist. Only the faculties of medicine and natural sciences are in operation at the national capital. A School of Arts and Trades is conducted by the Salesians, and there are normal schools in five departments. Secondary institutions are almost exclusively in the hands of the Catholic clergy and religious corporations. The minister of public instruction is the official head of the department of education.

The material development of Colombia has necessarily been much retarded by the political disturbances which have occurred since the first quarter of the nineteenth century and have made its history a continuous succession of civil wars. In 1898 Colombia had 8600 miles of telegraph, but the service is very defective. Railroad lines are in operation with an aggregate length of 411 miles, the longest being only 65 miles. The metric system has been in use for weights and measures since 1857. Metallic currency has nearly disappeared, incontrovertible paper forming the circulate medium. The re-establishment of gold coinage has lately been proposed. The paper currency, in 1906, had lost 99 per cent of its nominal value, 10,000 Colombian pesos (paper currency) being equal to 100 dollars. It is hoped, however, that with internal peace these unfortunate conditions will rapidly change for the better, since Colombia has unlimited natural resources. The history of the foreign debt of this republic is a series of borrowings and attempted settlements of accumulated capital and interest, rendered impossible by political disturbances. The budget for 1905-1906 amounted to £4,203,823. There are no official or general statistics of either exports or imports. Partial data, however, may give some general idea of the principal articles of Colombian produce. The Colombian gold mines up to 1845 yielded £71,200,000. Another source states it at £115,000,000 up to 1886. The same authority (Restrepo) estimates the silver-production during the same period at £6,600,000. The average output of rock-salt from 1883 to 1897 has been 11,000 tons per year. The exploitation of the emerald mines in the Province of Musos yielded the Government, in 1904, £10,000, but the production was not always so high in former times. Among vegetable products coffee takes the first rank for export, but the annual figures have varied according to the political state of the country. Thus, in 1899, before the revolution, 254,410 bags of coffee were exported from Barranquilla. In the year following only 86,917. Peace being restored, 574,270 bags could be shipped from the same port in 1904. In the same year 24,000 tons of bananas left Barranquilla for the United States, and tobacco and india-rubber may soon figure largely in Colombian export lists.

For the periods embracing the struggle for independence see the bibliography to the articles: BOLIVIA, ECUADOR, and VENEZUELA, to which we add: BENEDETTI, Historia de Colombia (Lima, 1887); also a concise but quite fair sketch in the vol. Bresil of the Univers pittoresque (1838) by FAMIN, Colombie et Guyanes; PETRE, The Republic of Colombia (London, 1906); SCRUGGS, The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics (Boston, 1902).

On the protracted negotiations as to the Colombia - Costa Rica boundaries see FERNANDEZ, Coleccion de Documentos para la historia de Costa Rica (San Jose, 1881-1886). The North American Review (New York) for 1902 contains a paper by MORALES, The Political and Economical Situation of Colombia.

On the volcanoes of Colombia, STUBEL, Die Vulkanberge von Colombia (Dresden, 1906).

On the Panama question, JOHNSON, Four Centuries of the Panama Canal (New York, 1906). Of the numerous books of travels in Colombia in the first half of the last century may be mentioned HUMBOLDT, Relation historique de voyage aux regions equinoxiales du nouveau continent (Paris, 1816-22); Vues des Cordilleres, et monuments des peuples indigenes de l'Amerique (Paris, 1816); MOLLIEN, Voyage dans la republique de Colombia (Paris, 1824). For the political history of the past century, Constitucion del estado de Cartagena de Indias sancionada en 14 de Junie del ano de 1812, segundo de su Independencia (Cartagena, 1812); Constitucion de la republica de Colombia (Bogotá, 1888). In Spanish literature from the sixteenth century early exploration and colonization of Colombia is extensively treated, notably in ENCISO, Suma de geografia (1519, 1530, and 1549); GOMARA, Historia general de las Indias (Antwerp, 1554); HERRERA, Historia general &ca. (Madrid, 1601-15 and 1726-30; Antwerp, 1728). Colombian writers from the sixteenth century: DE QUESADA, Tres ratos de Suezca (1568); CASTELLANOS, Elegias de varones ilustres de Indias; PIEDRAHITA, Historia general de las conquistas del Nuevo Reyno de Granada (Antwerp, 1688); DE ZAMORA, Historia de la prouincia de San Antonio del Nuevo Reyno de Granada del orden de Predicadores (Barcelona, 1701); CASSANI, Historia de la provincia de la compania de Jesus del Nueva Reyno de Granada (Madrid, 1741); JULIAN, La Perla de la Merica (Madrid, 1787) — important especially on the Goajiros Indians. From the nineteenth century: Docum. ineditos de Indias and Documentos para la historia de Espana. Of the highest value for the extinct Indian tribes of the Rio Cauca and its valleys as well as for the west coast of Colombia in general, CIEZA DE LEON, Cronica del Peru (Part I, Antwerp, 1554); ANDAGOYA, Relacion de los sucesos de Pedrarias Davila, tr. in Hackluyt Soc., XXXIV.

AD. F. BANDELIER

Colombo

The Archdiocese of Colombo, situated on the western seaboard of the Island of Ceylon, includes two of the nine provinces into which the island is divided, viz. the Western and the Northwestern. The history of the see begins in 1518, when Christianity was introduced by the Franciscans. The religion spread rapidly, the town and the surrounding districts were soon erected into a diocese, and Don Juan de Monteiro was created first Bishop of Colombo. This prelate received into the church Don Juan Dharmapala, the grandson of the Cingalese King Buwenekabahu VII. The young prince succeeded his grandfather in 1542. Six years after his accession, Colombo contained a Catholic population of 12,000, with two parish churches, Our Lady's and St. Laurence's, four monasteries or convents under the Cordeliers, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Capuchins, and a college conducted by the Jesuits.

In 1597 Don Juan Dharmapala died. By that time the Portuguese had established their authority throughout the whole island except in the Kingdom of Kandy in the centre of the island, and religion was free to develop in Jaffna and in the other parts of Ceylon. But peace was of short duration, for the Dutch arrived in the island and, after a struggle of more than fifty years, succeeded in obtaining possession of all the territory that had been held by the Portuguese; Colombo fell in 1656 and Jaffna in 1658. The new rulers made no secret of their attitude towards the Church, for in 1642 they concluded with the King of Kandy a treaty by which "all priests, friars and clergymen" were to be banished from Ceylon. The Reformed Church of Holland was declared established, and a series of severe penal enactments against Catholics followed. Catholic education was forbidden, Catholic worship abolished, and harbouring a priest was declared a capital offence. In 1796 Colombo was taken by the English, and one of their first acts was to repeal all the Dutch laws against the Catholics (1806); soon afterwards the rights restored to the Catholics of the United Kingdom by the Emancipation Act were conceded to their coreligionists in Ceylon.

During the Dutch period the ecclesiastical administration of the island had been in the hands of the Bishop of Cochin on the neighbouring continent; but in 1830 Gregory XVI constituted Ceylon a vicariate Apostolic and the first vicar Apostolic, Don Vicente de Rozario, was consecrated in 1836. In 1845 Propaganda found it necessary to increase the number of missionaries in the island, and sent the Sylvestrine Benedictines for that purpose. In 1847 Jaffna in the north of the island, was severed from the Vicariate of Colombo, and erected into a separate vicariate with Bishop H. Bettachini as vicar Apostolic. At his death in 1857, the northern vicariate was given over to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who had arrived in Ceylon two years after the Benedictines. Bishop Semeria, O. M. I., was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Jaffna, while Bishop Bravi, O. S. B., succeeded Bishop Caetano Antonio (1843-57) as Vicar Apostolic of Colombo.

A further partition was made in 1883, when the southern vicariate was divided into two, Colombo and Kandy. The Benedictines retained the latter, the former being given to the Oblates, in whose hands it has since remained, and Bishop C. Bonjean, O. M. I., was transferred from Jaffna to Colombo. Three years later (1886) the hierarchy was established in Ceylon, and the above-mentioned Bishop of Colombo, Dr. Bonjean, was made metropolitan with two suffragan sees, Jaffna and Kandy. In 1893 two new dioceses were created and entrusted to the Jesuits, Galle in the South being severed from Colombo, and Trincomali in the East, separated from Jaffna. In the same year Bishop Melizan, O. M. I., was transferred from Jaffna to Colombo as successor to Bishop Bonjean who had died in 1892; Bishop Melizan was succeeded in 1905 by Bishop Antoine Coudert, O. M. I., from 1898 coadjutor, with right of succession.

According to the last census returns the total population of the archdiocese is 1,274,000, of whom 206,000 are Catholics. There are 100 missionaries, 91 Oblates and 9 secular priests, and 295 churches and chapels. The Cathedral of Santa Lucia, a fine building in the Renaissance style, has accommodations for 6000. Attached to the cathedral are an English school for boys and one for girls, the former with over a thousand pupils, being taught by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, while in the latter, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd give instruction to 500 girls. All the charitable institutions in the archdiocese, and many educational institutions of the archdiocese are in the hands of religious congregations. These are as follows: Brothers of Christian Schools, 47 engaged in teaching; native Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, 20, teaching; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 23, over schools and orphanages; Sisters of the Holy Family, 23, schools, orphanages, and hospitals; Franciscan Sisters (Missionaries of Mary), 49, school, orphanages, and hospitals; native Sisters of St. Francis Xavier, 117, teaching; native Sisters of St. Peter, 108, teaching. Three of the principal government hospitals have been entrusted to the sisters. A government reformatory for youthful offenders is in charge of the Oblates, the number of boys varying from 150 to 200. About the same number of old people are provided with a home by the Little Sisters of the Poor in Colombo. In the 397 schools of the archdiocese 35,520 children are educated. Of these schools 202 are for boys, with 20,826 pupils, and 195 for girls with 14,694 pupils. The management of the schools is entirely in the hands of the missionaries; but there is a government examination every year, on the results of which a grant is paid to the superintendent of schools. The archdiocese maintains for teachers of both sexes normal schools recognized by the Government. Higher education in English is provided for girls at the various convents in Colombo, and for boys at St. Joseph's College (800 students) conducted by the Oblate Fathers. The training of aspirants for the priesthood is carried on in two seminaries: the preparatory seminary of St. Aloysius with 24 students and St. Bernard's theological seminary with 20 students. There are 9 orphanages, 1 for boys and 8 for girls, which provide education for 673 orphans (104 boys and 569 girls). Two papers, both bi-weekly are published at the Colombo Catholic Press, the "Ceylon Catholic Messenger" in English, and the "Nanartha Pradipaya" in Cingalese. The management and editorial control of both papers are in the hands of the missionaries. A Cingalese monthly of a religious character is issued from the press of the boys' orphanage. Colombo has conferences of St. Vincent de Paul and of the Ladies of Charity. The Bonjean Memorial Hall is the head-quarters of the Ceylon Catholic Union, established in 1902, with branches in all the principal parts of the island. A Catholic Club was opened in 1900.

Battandier, Ann. Pont. Cath. (1908); Catholic Directory (Madras, 1908); Ceylon Handbook and Directory (Colombo, 1908); Tennent, A History of Ceylon (London, 1860).

ANTOINE COURDERT

Mateo Realdo Colombo

Italian anatomist and discoverer of the pulmonary circulation, b. at Cremona in 1516; d. at Rome, 1559. He studied medicine at Padua with Vesalius, became his assistant, and in 1544 his successor as lecturer on surgery and anatomy. In 1545 Cosimo de'Medici, who was reorganizing the University of Pisa, held out such inducements to Colombo that he became the first professor of anatomy there. Colombo occupied this post until 1548, when he received a call to the chair of anatomy in the Papal University at Rome. This he held until his death. During all his years of teaching at Padua, Pisa, and Rome, he continued to make original researches in anatomy. The results of his investigation were published under the title, "De Re Anatomicâ Libri XV" (Venice, 1559). The most important feature of this book is an accurate and complete description of the pulmonary circulation. Colombo say: "The blood is carried by the artery-like vein to the lungs, and being there made thin is brought back thence together with air by the vein-like artery to the left ventricle of the heart." Colombo know that this was an original observation, for he adds: "This fact no one has hitherto observed or recorded in writing; yet, it may be most readily observed by any one." Harvey, in his work, "On the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals", quotes Colombo more than once and gives him credit for many original observations in anatomy. Apparently lest there should be any diminution of Harvey's glory, English writers on the history of medicine have, as a rule, failed to give Colombo the credit which he deserves and which Harvey so readily accorded him. Colombo made as many as fourteen dissections in one year at Rome. Several hundred people sometimes attended his anatomical demonstrations, and cardinals, archbishops, and other high ecclesiastics were often present. Colombo is famous as a teacher of anatomy and physiology, and first used living animals to demonstrate various functions, especially the movements of the heart and lungs. He said one could learn more in an hour in this way than in three months from Galen. His book was dedicated to Pope Paul IV, of whom he was an intimate personal friend.

The best authority for Colombo's work in anatomy is his De Re Anatomicâ (Venice, 1559; Paris, 1562). The most complete life is that by TOLLIN in Pflügers Archiv. XXI-XXII. In English there is a good sketch by FISHER, Annals of Anatomy and Surgery (Brooklyn, 1880).

JAMES J. WALSH

Colonia

A titular see of Armenia. Procopius (De Ædif., III, iv) informs us that Justinian restored a fortress which had been captured by Pompey, then fortified it and called it Colonia. This city figures in the "Syneedemus" of Hierocles and in the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" as a suffragan of Sebaste, metropolis of Armenia Prima. Lequien (I, 429) mentions five bishops: Euphronius, later transferred to Nieopolis, a friend and correspondent of St. Basil; Eustathius in 458; St. John the Silent, who died a monk at St. Sabas, near Jerusalem, in 557; Proclus, exiled by the Emperor Justin in 518 as a Severian; Callinicus in 680 and 692. Bénay published in "Echos d'Orient" (IV, 93) a curious Byzantine inscription concerning a drungarius of Colonia. In the ninth century the city was the capital of a Byzantine theme. Its modern name is Koilu Hissar; it is the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Sivas, and has about 1800 inhabitants, among them 600 Greeks, 200 Armenians, and a few Protestant and Catholic Armenians (Cuinet, Turquie d'Asie, I, 792). Another Colonia, later Taxara, situated in Cappadocia Tertia, was a suffragan of Mocessus; seven bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 413).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Colonna

A celebrated family which played an important rôle in Italy during medieval and Renaissance times, and which still flourishes in several branches in Rome and Naples. It is commonly supposed to have been originally an offshoot of the Counts of Tusculum, deriving the family name from the castle of Colonna situated on a spur of the Alban hills, some five miles from Tusculum. The name makes its first appearance in authentic history in the person of Petrus de Columna, owner of Colonna, Monte Porzio, and Zagarolo, and claimant of Palestrina, whose castles were seized by Paschal II, a.d. 1101, in punishment of his lawless depradations. With the destruction of Tusculum by the Romans in 1191, the name of the ancient counts disappears forever, whilst the Colonna come prominently to the front. From the first their policy was anti-papal and Ghibelline, not so much from love of the emperors as from the desire to maintain towards the popes an attitude of quasi-independence. They exercised plenary jurisdiction over their vassals in matters civil and criminal and frequently contracted alliances with foreign potentates without consulting the wishes or interests of their sovereign. They were in perpetual feud with their Guelph neighbours, in particular with the rival house of the Orsini. They so frequently incurred the papal censures on account of their rebellious conduct, that it became the general but erroneous opinion of the Roman people that they yearly excommunication of the Colonna was one of the main purposes of the Bull "In Cœna Domini". Nevertheless, members of the family were quite often appointed by friendly pontiffs to high offices of Church and State. Rarely were they without at least one representative in the Sacred College, and at one of the most critical junctures in the annals of the Church, the election to the papacy of Cardinal Odo Colonna, Martin V, put an end to the disastrous Western Schism. Twice in the course of its history this powerful house was threatened with annihilation (see Boniface VIII; Alexander VI), but on both occasions the restoration of its members was as speedy as their fall.

The long line of Colonnese cardinals was opened in 1192 when Giovanni the Elder was created Cardinal-Priest of S. Prisca by Celestine III. He was made Bishop of Sabina by Innocent III, and was employed on important legations to Germany, Spain, Sicily, and France. He was the powerful friend of St. Francis, and was largely instrumental in obtaining from the pope the approval of the Franciscan Rule. He is remembered at Amalfi for his munificence in building and endowing a spacious hospital. He died at Rome, 1209. Three years later Pope Innocent elevated to the cardinalate a nephew of the cardinal, known as Giovanni the Younger, Cardinal-Priest of S. Prassede. He was sent to the Orient as legate in 1217 and returned to Rome in 1222 bringing with him the Pillar of the Scourging, which remains to the present day in the chapel he built for it in his titular church. He also built and endowed two hospitals near the Lateran for the relief of the poor and of pilgrims. In 1240, after a fuitle attempt to reconcile Pope Gregory IX and Frederick II, the cardinal, as head of his family, together with the other Ghibellines of Rome, went over to the emperor and openly rebelled against the Holy See. He died in 1245. Matthew Paris (ad. an. 1244) describes him as "a vessel filled with pride and insolence; who, as he was the most illustrious and powerful in secular possessions of all the cardinals, was the most efficacious author and fosterer of discord between the emperor and the pope".

As a punishment of their Ghibellinism, no scion of the house was admitted into the Sacred College until 1278, when the magnanimous Orsini pope, Nicholas III, the son of that Matteo Rosso who had razed all the Colonna strongholds in Rome, in token of amnesty elevated to the dignity of the purple Giacomo Colonna with the title of Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Via Lata. About ten years later, Honorius IV created Pietro, nephew of Giacomo, Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of S. Eustachio. These were the two cardinals whose bitter quarrel with Boniface VIII ended so disastrously for that pontiff and for the prestige of the medieval papacy. Deposed and degraded in 1297, they were reinstated in their dignities and possessions by Clement V in 1305. Both died at Avignon, Giacomo in 1318, Pietro in 1326. These unruly cardinals continued the deeply religious traditions of their family, founding and endowing the hospital of S. Giacomo for incurables and the Franciscan convent of S. Silvestro in Capite, in which they deposed the remains of the saintly sister of Giacomo, the nun Beata Margarita. Their munificence as patrons of art is attested by many masterpieces in the Roman churches, notably Turrita's mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore, pronounced by Gregorovius "the finest work of all the mosaic paintings in Rome". The learned Cardinal Egidio Colonna well deserves a special article (see Colonna, Egidio). One year after Pietro's death, his nephew Giovanni, a son of the noble Senator Stefano, whose immediate family remained faithful to the Holy See during the troublous times of Louis the Bavarian, whilst his kinsman Sciarra, led the schismatical party, was raised to the cardinalate by John XXII, with the title of S. Angelo. He was universally esteemed, especially by men of letters. He wrote the "Lives of the Roman Pontiffs from St. Peter to Boniface VIII". At his death, 1348, his intimate friend, Petrarch, wrote the beautiful sonnet, "Rotta è l'alta Colonna". At the beginning of the Great Schism Urban created two Colonna cardinals, Agapito and Stefano, but they both died shortly after. Then followed Odo Colonna, later Pope Martin V, who, in 1430 bestowed the purple upon his youthful nephew Prospero. The latter, becoming involved in the rebellion of his family against Eugene IV, was deprived of his benefices and sentenced to perpetual exile, but was reinstated by Nicholas V, and died in 1463, lauded by the Humanists as a Mæcenas of arts and letters. In the heated conclave of 1458 it was Prospero Colonna who decided the election of Piccolomini in the famous words, "I also vote for the Cardinal of Siena, and make him pope".

Prospero's nephew, Giovanni, was the representative of his family during the pontificates of Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Pius III, and Julius II. Created Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro in his twenty-fourth year by Pope Sixtus, he was committed to the Castle of Sant' Angelo two years later, when that pontiff and the Colonna began their bitter feud. After an imprisonment of over a year, he regained his liberty. One cannot feel much sympathy with him in his misfortunes during the pontificate of the Borgia pope, who could not have been elected without his vote. When Alexander VI began his war of extermination against the Roman barons, Colonna, more fortunate than Cardinal Orsini, made his escape and did not return to Rome till the pope had passed away. He himself died in 1508. Although Julius II restored to the Colonna their possessions and dignities, and by the Pax Romana, 1511, put an end to the hereditary feuds of the rival houses, yet, their old-time position of quasi-independence was never again attained. The two secular heads of the family, Prospero and Fabrizio, acquired great fame as generals in the armies of the Church and of Charles V. Fabrizio's daughter was the highly gifted Vittoria. Prospero's nephew, Pompeo, was chosen to represent the family in the Church. He consented very reluctantly, for the sword was more congenial to him than the Breviary. He received a large accumulation of benefices, was created cardinal by Leo X, in 1517, and vice-chancellor by Clement VII. In return, he took the side of the emperor in his quarrel with the pope. On 20 Sept., 1526, took place the onslaught on Rome, and the desecration of St. Peter's and the Vatican, which covers his memory with eternal infamy. He also joined with Constable Bourbon in the capture of Rome, May, 1527; but, horrified by the brutality of the sack of his native city, he did his best to shield his unfortunate countrymen within the walls of the Cancellaria. The indulgent Clement absolved and reinstated him three years later. He became viceroy of Naples and died in 1532. The good name of the house was redeemed by the next Colonnese cardinal, Marcantonio, who was carefully trained in piety and learning by the Franciscan friar, Felice Peretti, later Sixtus V. He was created Cardinal-Priest of SS. XII Apostoli, in 1565, closely imitated St. Charles Borromeo in establishing seminaries and restoring discipline, was librarian of the Vatican, fostered learning, and was extremely charitable to the poor. Before his death in 1597, his kinsman Ascanio Colonna was elevated to the purple by Sixtus V in 1586. Although he owed his cardinalate largely to the favour of Philip II, yet he did not permit his gratitude to extinguish his patriotism. It was his defection from the Spanish ranks at a critical moment during the conclave of 1592 that defeated the aspirations of Philip's candidate, Cardinal Sanseverina and led to the election of Clement VIII. In his well-inown exclamation: "I see that God will not have Sanseverina, neither will Ascanio Colonna", breathes the haughty spirit of his race. He died in 1608, making the Lateran his heir. Succeeding cardinals of the house of Colonna were Girolamo, created by Urban VIII in 1628, d. 1666; Carlo, created by Clement XI in 1706, d. 1739; Prospero, created by Clement XII in 1739, d. 1746; Girolamo, created by Benedict XIV 1743, d. 1763; Prospero, of the Sciarra branch, created simultaneously with his kinsman in 1743, d. Prefect of the Propaganda in 1765; finally, Marcantonio, created by Clement XIII in 1759, d. in 1803. Though all were conspicuous for learning and piety and for filling high office at the Roman court or in the most important dioceses of Italy, they need only a passing notice. The most illustrious lay prince of the Colonna was Marcantonio, who at the great sea-fight of Lepanto, 7 Oct., 1571, commanded the papal galleys and on his return to Rome was awarded a memorable triumph. To cement the friendship between the houses of Colonna and Orsini, Sixtus V married their chiefs to his nieces and ordained that they and their descendants should enjoy the dignity of Assistant Princes at the Pontifical Throne.

      Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane, s. v.; Coppi, Memorie Colonnesi (Rome, 1857), with genealogical tables; Von Reumont, Beiträge zur ital. Gesch. (1857), V, 3-117, an excellent account; the histories of the city of Rome by da Reumont, Gregorovius, Grisar, etc.

James F. Loughlin.

Egidio Colonna

(Ægidius a Colonna)

A Scholastic philosopher and theologian, b. about the middle of the thirteenth century, probably 1247, in Rome; hence the name Ægidius Romanus, or Giles of Rome, by which name he is generally known; d. at Avignon, 22 Dec., 1316.

Having entered the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine at Rome, he was sent to Paris for his philosophical and theological studies, and became there the disciple of Thomas Aquinas. Egidio Colonna was the first Augustinian appointed to teach in the University of Paris, and his deep learning earned for him the title of Doctor fundatissimus. In 1281, at the Thirty-sixth Council of Paris, in which several differences between bishops and mendicant orders were arranged, the he sided with the bishops against the regulars. Referring to this, a contemporary philosopher, Godfrey of Fontaines, mentioned him as the most renowned theologian of the whole city (qui modo melior de totâ villâ in omnibus reputatur). King Philip III entrusted to him the education of his son, who later, in 1285, ascended the throne as Philip IV. When the new king, after his coronation at Reims, entered Paris, Egidio gave the address of welcome in the name of the university, insisting on justice as the most important virtue of a king. (For the text, see Ossinger, in work cited below.) Some time before this several of his opinions had been found reprehensible by Archbishop Etienne Tempier of Paris, and in 1285 Pope Honorius IV asked him for a public retractation. This, however, was far from lessening his reputation, for in 1287 a decree of the general chapter of the Augustinians held in Florence, after remarking that Egidio's doctrine "shines throughout the whole world" (venerabilis magistri nostri Ægidii doctrina mundum universum illustrat), commanded all members of the order to accept and defend all his opinions, written or to be written. After filling several important positions in his order he was elected superior-general in 1292. Three years later Pope Boniface VIII appointed him Archbishop of Bourges, France, although Jean de Savigny had already been designated for this see by Pope Celestine V. The French nobility protested on the ground that Colonna was an Italian, but his appointment was maintained and approved by the king. He was present at the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) in which the Order of Knights Templars was suppressed.

The writings of Egidio Colonna cover the fields of philosophy and theology. There is no complete edition of his works, but several treatises have been published separately. In Holy Scripture and theology he wrote commentaries on the "Hexaemeron", the "Canticle of Canticles", and the "Epistle to the Romans"; several "Opuscula" and "Quodlibeta", various treatises, and especially commentaries on Peter the Lombard's "Four Books of Sentences". In philosophy, besides commentaries on almost all the works of Aristotle, he wrote several special treatises. But his main work is the treatise "De regimine principum", written for, and dedicated to, his pupil, Philip IV. It passed through many editions (the first, Augsburg, 1473) and was translated into several languages. The Roman edition of 1607 contains a life of Egidio. The work is divided into three books: the first treats of the individual conduct of the king, the nature of his true happiness, the choice and acquisition of virtues, and the ruling of passions; the second deals with family life and the relations with wife, children, and servants; the third considers the State, its origin, and the proper mode of governing in times of peace and war. Egidio's pedagogical writings have been published in German by Kaufmann (Freiburg, 1904).

The attitude of Egidio Colonna in the difficulties between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip IV was long believed to have been favourable to the king. But the contrary is now certain, since it has been proved that he is the author of the treatise "De potestate ecclesiasticâ", in which the rights of the pope are vindicated. The similarity between this treatise and the Bull "Unam Sanctam" seems to support the view taken by some writers that Egidio was the author of the Bull. He had already taken an active part in ending the discussions and controversies concerning the validity of Boniface's election to the papacy. In his treatise "De renunciatione Papæ sive Apologia pro Bonifacio VIII" he shows the legitimacy of Celestine's resignation and consequently of Boniface's election. In philosophy and theology he generally follows the opinions of his master, St. Thomas, whose works he quotes as scripta communia; The "Defensorium seu Correctorium corruptorii librorum Sancti Thomæ Acquinatis" against the Franciscan William de la Mare of Oxford is by some attributed to Egidio; but this remains uncertain. Nevertheless, on many points he holds independent views and abandons the Thomistic doctrine to follow the opinions of St. Augustine and of the Franciscan School. He even errs in asserting that, before the fall, grace had not been given to Adam, an opinion which he wrongly attributes to St. Augustine. After the decree of the general chapter of 1287, mentioned above, the opinions of Egidio Colonna were generally accepted in the Augustinian Order. He thus became the founder of the Ægidian School. Among the most prominent representatives of this school must be mentioned Giocamo Capoccio of Viterbo (d. 1307) and Augustinus Triumphus (d. 1328), both contemporaries of Egidio, andd also students and professors in the University of Paris; Prosper of Reggio, Albert of Padua, Gerard of Siena, Henry of Frimar, Thomas of Strasburg–all in the first half of the fourteenth century. For some time after this other opinions prevailed in the Augustinian Order. But as late as the seventeenth century should be mentioned Raffaello Bonherba (d. 1681) who wrote "Disputationes totius philosophiæ … in quibus omnes philosophicæ inter D. Thomam et Scotum controversiæ principaliter cum doctrinâ nostri Ægidii Columnæ illustrantur" (Palermo, 1645, 1671); and Augustino Arpe (d. 704) who wrote "Summa totius theologiæ Ægidii Columnæ" (Bologna, 1701, and Genoa, 1704). Federico Nicolò Gavardi (d. 1715), the most important interpreter of Colonna, composed "Theologia exantiquata iuxta orthodoxam S. P. Augustini doctrinam ab Ægidio Columnâ doctoræ fundatissimo expositam …" (6 vols. fol., Naples and Rome, 1683-1696); this work was abridged by Anselm Hörmannseder in his "Hecatombe theologica" (Presburg, 1737). Benignus Sichrowsky (d. 1737) wrote also "Philosophia vindicata ad erroribus philosophorum gentilium iuxta doctrinam S. Augustini et B. Ægidii Columnæ" (Nuremberg, 1701).

      Ossinger, Bibl. Augustiniana (Ingolstadt and Vienna, 1768); Denifle and Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Parisiensis (Paris, 1889–), I, II, see Index; FÉrret, La faculté de théol. de Paris et ses doct. les plus célèbres au moyen âge (Paris, 1896), III, 459-475; Hurter, Nomenclator (3d ed., Innsbruck, 1906), II, 481-486 and passim for Ægidian School; Lazard, Gilles de Rome in Hist. litt. de la France (Paris, 1888), XXX, 423-566; Mattiolo, Studio critico sopra Egidio Romano Colonna in Antologia Agostiniana (Rome, 1896), I; Scholz, Ægidius von Rom (Stuttgart, 1902); Werner, Die Scholastik des spät. M. A., III, Der Augustinismus des spät. M. A. (Vienna, 1863); Scheeben in Kirchenlex., s. v. See also Chevalier, Rép. des sources hist. (2d ed., Paris, 1905), s. v. Gilles.

C.A. Dubray

Giovanni Paolo Colonna

Born at Bologna, 1637; died in the same city, 28 November, 1695. After studying under Agostino Fillipucci in his native city, Antonio Abbatini and Oragio Benevoli in Rome, Colonna became organist at the church of S. Apollinaris in the latter city. In 1659 he accepted the post of choir-master at the church of S. Petronio in Bologna. He not only was a charter member of the Accademia Filarmonica but founded a school of his own which has produced distinguished musicians, among them Giovanni Maria Buononcini. Colonna was one of the most noted church composers of the seventeenth century and has left a large number of works (masses, psalms, motets, litanies, antiphons, requiems, lamentations) for from one to eight voices with either organ or orchestra accompaniment. These compositions are but seldom performed at present, both on account of their not having the form or the spirit of the great period of church music, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and because of the elaborate apparatus required for their performance.

RIEMANN, Musik Lexikon; ROCKSTRO, History of Music (New York, 1886); KORNMÜLLER, Kirchenmusikalisches Lexikon; WOOLDRIDGE, The Oxford History of Music (Oxford, 1901-05); GASPARI, Dei musicisti Bolognesi (Bologna, 1876-80).

JOSEPH OTTEN.

Vittorio Colonna

Italian poet, born at Marino, 1490; died at Rome, February 25, 1547. She was the daughter of Fabrizio Colonna, lord of various Roman fiefs and grand constable of Naples. Her mother, Agnese da Montefeltro, was a daughter of Federigo da Montefeltro, first Duke of Urbino. In 1509 Vittorio was married to Ferrante Francesco d'Avalos, Marquis of Pescara, a Neapolitan nobleman of Spanish origin, who was one of the chief generals of the Emperor Charles V. Pescara's military career culminated in the victory of Pavia (24 February, 1525), after which he became involved in Morone's conspiracy for the liberation of Italy, and was tempted from his allegiance to the emperor by the offer of the crown of Naples. Vittoria earnestly dissuaded him from this scheme, declaring (as her cousin, Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, tells us) that she "preferred to die the wife of a most brave marquis and a most upright general, than to live the consort of a king dishonoured with any stain of infamy". Pescara died in the following November, leaving his young heir and cousin, Alfonso d'Avalos, Marchese del Vasto, under Vittorio's care.

Vittoria henceforth devoted herself entirely to religion and literature. We find her usually in various monasteries, at Rome, Viterbo, and elsewhere, living in conventual simplicity, the centre of all that was noblest in the intellectual and spiritual life of the times. She had a peculiar genius for friendship, and the wonderful spiritual tie that united her to Michelangelo Buonarroti made the romance of that great artist's life. Pietro Bembo, the literary dictator of the age, was among her most fervent admirers. She was closely in touch with Ghiberti, Contarini, Giovanni Morone, and all that group of men and women who were working for the reformation of the Church from within. For a while she had been drawn into the controversy concerning justification by faith, but was kept within the limits of orthodoxy by the influence of the beloved friend of her last years, Cardinal Reginald Pole, to whom she declared she owed her salvation. Her last wish was to be buried among the nuns of S. Anna de' Funari at Rome; but it is doubtful whether her body ultimately rested there, or was removed to the side of her husband at San Domenico in Naples.

Vittoria is undoubtedly greater as a personality than as a poet. Her earlier "Rime", which are mainly devoted to the glorification of her husband, are somewhat monotonous. Her later sonnets are almost exclusively religious, and strike a deeper note. A longer poem in terza-rima, the "Trionfo di Cristo" shows the influence of Dante and Savonarola, as well as that of Petrarch. Her latest and best biographer, Mrs. Jerrold, to whom we are indebted for a number of beautiful and faithful translations of Vittoria's poetry, has drawn a suggestive analogy between it and the work of Christina Rossetti. Many of Vittoria's letters, and a prose meditation upon the Passion of Christ, have also been preserved.

VISCONTI, Rime di Vittoria Colonna (Rome, 1840); LUZIO, Vittoria Colonna (Mantua, 1884); FERRERO AND MÜLLER, Carteggio di Vittoria Colonna, Marchesa di Pescara (Florence, 1892); REUMONT, tr. by MÜLLER AND FERRERO, Vittorio Colonna, Vita, Fede, e Poesia nel secolo decimosesto (Turin, 1892); TORDI, Vittoria Colonna in Orvieto (Perugia, 1895); JERROLD), Vittoria Colonna, with some account of her Friends and her Times (London and New York, 1906).

EDMUND G. GARDNER.

Colonnade

A number of columns symmetrically arranged in one or more rows. It is termed monostyle when of one row, polystyle when of many. If surrounding a building or court, it is called a peristyle; when projecting beyond the line of the building a portico. Sometimes it supports a building, sometimes a roof only. For ecclesiastical architecture the most famous specimen is the colonnade of St. Peter's, erected 1665-67 by Bernini, with 284 columns and 162 statues of saints on balustrades (see THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, II, s. v. BERNINI).

ANDERSON AND SPIERS. The Architecture of Greece and Rome (London, 1903); GWILT, Encyclopedia of Architecture (London, 1881).

THOMAS H. POOLE.

Colophon

A titular see of Asia Minor. It was one of the twelve Ionian cities, between Lebedos (ruins near Hypsili-Hissar) and Ephesus (Aya-Solouk). In Greek antiquity two sons of Codrus, King of Athens, established a colony there. It was the birthplace of the philosopher Xenophanes and the poet Mimnermus. It was destroyed by Lysimachus, one of the successors of Alexander. Notium served as the port, and in the neighbourhood was the village of Clarus, with its famous temple and oracle of Apollo Clarius, where Calchas vied with Mopsus in divinatory science. The cavalry of Colophon was renowned. Its pine-trees supplied a rosin or colophony highly valued for the strings of musical instruments. In Roman times Colophon lost its importance; the name was transferred to the site of Notium, and the latter name disappeared between the Peloponnesian War and the time of Cicero. The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" mentions Colophon or Colophone, as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a suffragan of Ephesus. Lequien (I, 723) gives the names of only four Bishops: St. Sosthenes (I Cor., i, 1) and St. Tychicus (Tit., iii, 12) are merely legendary; Euthalius was present at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Alexander was alive in 451. The ruins of the city are at the Castro of Ghiaour-Keui, an insignificant village in the vilayet or Smyrna, caza of Koush-Adasi.

CHANDLER, Travels in Asia Minor, XXXI; ARRUNDEL, Seven Churches in Asia, 303; TEXIER, Asie Mineure, 356; FONTRIER, in Musœon and Library of the Evangelical School at Smyrna (Greek), III, 187; SCHUCHHARDT, in Athen. Mitteil. (1886), 398.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Colorado

The thirty-fifth, in point of admission, of the United States of America. It lies between the 37th and 41st degrees of N. latitude and the 102nd and 109th degrees of W. longitude, the meridian lines making its shape a parallelogram as exact as the curvature of the earth will allow. When its original territorial limits were discussed it was suggested that the crest of the Rocky Mountains was a natural boundary, and it was on the reply of Colonel William Gilpin, who became its first governor, that railroads and political unity had superseded natural boundaries, that it was placed squarely across the divide and so has its mountain centre with a slope to either ocean.

After the Cliff-dwellers, its Indian tribes were the Utes and Arapahoes. It became part of French and Spanish America, and was covered by the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas cession (1850), and the cession from Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848). Its area is 103,900 square miles.

The third of the State east of Denver is a part of the great plains, level and arid; The altitude at the base of the State capitol is exactly one mile; going east, it falls to about 4000 feet at the State line. Through the centre, north and south, runs the main Rocky Mountain range containing the highest peaks of these mountains, thirty-two of which exceed 14,000 feet and several so nearly the same height that it is a matter of dispute as to which is the highest, probably Mount Massive, 14,498 feet; On their western slope they form a plateau country. Between encircling ranges are natural parks (South, Middle, North, San Luis, Estes) at an altitude of about 9000 feet, which are notable stock-raising lands. The Rio Grande, Arkansas, and Platte Rivers all rise in this State, flowing south and east, and the Great Colorado River flowing west has its headwaters here. The Grand Cañon of the Arkansas, Mount of the Holy Cross, and the Garden of the Gods, are the principal scenic attractions.

Climate

The climate is exceptionally dry, healthful, and invigorating. The summers are cool and the winters moderate; There is an average of 181 clear days out of 365. Manitou, Glenwood, and Sulphur Springs are noted sanatoria. The annual rainfall is low, but so widely variant in localities that no intelligible average can be stated; Extremes are 12 and 29 inches.

Population

By the census of 1900 the population was 539,700: whites, 529,046; negroes, 8570; Indians, 1437; Chinese, 599. The estimate by the State Board of Health for 1906 was 615,570. The greatest number of immigrants are from States on the same parallel. There are many native-born citizens of Spanish descent in the southern counties. Representatives from every country in Europe are included among the population, but none localized in colonies to any extent; 88 per cent of the population are native-born; 4 per cent are illiterate; Denver, the State capital and largest city, has a population approximating 200,000. Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Leadville, Trinidad, and Greeley are the larger cities.

Resources

Mining and agriculture are the principal industries. The manufacture of steel has been started, and commerce is incident to all other industries, hut the mine and ranch are the exploited features of the commonwealth; In both gold and silver, Colorado is the largest producer of any of the States. In 1906, gold to the value of $23,506,069, and 13,381,575 ounces of silver were mined. There was also a heavy production of lead, zinc, and iron. Coal underlies a very large area, much larger than in Pennsylvania; the output for 1906 being 11,240,078 tons bituminous and 68,343 tons anthracite. Cripple Creek, Ouray, and Leadville are the most active mining camps, but the mineral belt covers every mountain county from Routt in the north-west corner to the New Mexico line. The Georgetown district claims to produce the highest grade of silver ore mined in the United States.

The average wheat yield is about twenty-one bushels to the acre. East of the foothills is a deep loam overlying a gravel subsoil, and wherever water can be got the land is very productive. The western slope, including the valleys between the mountain ranges, has an even richer soil, especially adapted to fruit production. All the grains and fruits of the temperate zone are produced, but those crops which seem best adapted to local conditions are wheat, apples, potatoes, cantaloupes, and the sugar-beet. The value of the output of agriculture, dairy, and poultry for 1906 was $72,600,000; fruit, $7,000,000. Until recently no land not under ditch was considered safe to farm, the annual rainfall not ensuring a crop. But such land is now cultivated under scientific methods called "dry farming", so that the value of this land in Eastern Colorado has doubled within the last three years. Nevertheless irrigation is the specific incident of Colorado farming; It has been studied to secure the most economic results, and ultimately no water will leave the State, all being caught and stored in reservoirs. In 1900 there were 7374 miles of main ditches covering by laterals 390 acres to the mile; The estimated value of the manufactures, outside of smelting, for 1906 is $15,000,000. Six railroad lines enter the State from the east and two cross its western boundary. Every town of any size in the State has railroad connexion. The railway mileage in 1905 was 5081.

Education

Public education with compulsory attendance is provided for the whole State, with a high school in every large town; The university, located at Boulder, is supported by an annual two-fifths of a mill State tax which gives it an ample foundation. It gives law, medical, engineering, and academic courses. In 1906 it had 840 students, besides 525 in the preparatory school. There are also the University of Denver (Methodist), Colorado College at Colorado Springs (secular), the Jesuit College of the Sacred Heart, and the Loretto Heights Academy at Denver. The State Normal School is at Greeley. Other schools are the Agricultural College at Fort Collins and the School of Mines at Golden, with special State institutions for the deaf and blind, The principal school support comes from the ownership of the 16th and 36th sections of each non-mineral township, the value of which is beyond accurate approximation, besides school district ownership of over $9,000,000. The total number of pupils enrolled in 1906 was 144,007. The teachers numbered 4600 and the schoolhouses 2010. The expenditure for that year was $4,486,226.78. The pupils attending parochial schools number 5905 students; in Catholic colleges, 261; girls in academies, 595; total youth under Catholic care 7574. There is a total of 537 sisters in charge of hospitals and schools.

History

Coronado probably crossed the south-east corner of the State in his celebrated expedition of 1541-2, and Francisco Escalante explored its southern border in 1776. The first immigration was Spanish from New Mexico, at Pueblo, Trinidad, and other places south of the Arkansas River. In 1806 Zebulon M. Pike crossed the plains on an official exploration and gave his name to Pike's Peak. Long's expedition was in 1819. John C. Fremont and Kit Carson explored the mountain passes in the forties. In 1858 gold was discovered in Cherry Creek, which led to the Pike's Peak excitement and immigration of 1859. That year is the date of the first real settlement of the country by English-speaking people. Colorado was organized as a Territory in 1861, and admitted as a State in 1876, with a constitution formed in that year. This explains its sentimental title of "The Centennial State". The State motto is Nil Sine Numine.

Colorado coming in as an organized territory just as the Civil War broke out, the question of loyalty or secession agitated the population, but the Union men were in overwhelming majority. The Territory contributed two regiments to the Union Army. Since 1876 the State has generally gone Republican, but being so large a producer of silver it supported the Democratic ticket so long as the double standard of money remained an issue. There have been two or three occasions since admission when the State has paid the price for encouraging innovations parading themselves as reforms. In 1894 Governor Davis H. Waite, elected as a Populist but really a Socialist, ordered out the State troops in opposition to the armed police of Denver; cannon were trained on the City Hall and only his yielding at the last moment prevented what threatened to be a serious civil revolution. Under his administration the militia were ordered out in the interest of the striking miners at Cripple Creek, and later in 1904 they were ordered to the same district under Governor Peabody in support of the mine-owners. Drastic deportations and vigilance-committee violence were committed by the State authorities, excusable, as they alleged, owing to the extreme conditions. This led to an exciting election in the fall of that year, in which Alva Adams, the Democratic candidate for governor, was undoubtedly elected and received his certificate, but was allowed to hold office only until a recount by the legislature was decided against him and Jesse McDonald, the Republican candidate for lieutenant-governor, was given the seat.

Woman suffrage was adopted by popular vote in 1893. It has since been in full operation, but its results for good have been nil. Only during the first few sessions were one, two, and, at most, three women elected to the legislature out of its 100 members. No woman has been elected to any State office except to that of superintendent of public instruction. Instead of being represented in conventions by nearly half, women delegates now are scarcely seen in such bodies. As a political factor they have not made either of the great parties stronger or weaker.

Religious Factors

The State constitutes one diocese, with its see at Denver. Citizens of Spanish descent, about 20,000, are practically all Catholics, and there are 8,000 to 10,000 Catholic Austrians and Poles at Trinidad, Denver, and Pueblo. The Catholic population is estimated (1908) at about 100,000. Among the Catholics prominent in the development of Colorado may be mentioned Gen. Bela M. Hughes. the Democratic candidate for governor at the first State election; Casimiro Barela and James T. Smith. both in the legislature or executive departments of the State Government for over thirty years; Peter W. Breene and Francis Carney, who held the lieutenant-governorship; Senator H. A. W. Tabor, Hon. Bernard J. O'Connell of Georgetown, Martin Currigan, and John K. Mullen of Denver. John H. Reddin, an attorney of Denver, was the organizer of the Knights of Columbus in this State. The Catholic Church numerically exceeds any one of the Protestant denominations. The next in numbers is the Methodist, and then comes the Presbyterian. Although the State adjoins Utah there are very few Mormons.

Absolute freedom of worship is guaranteed by the Constitution, and there is apparently no disposition to infringe this law. In no State is there better feeling between the Church and non-Catholic denominations. The common law of Sunday prevails with no specific statutory change. In the cities the matter is left to local ordinance. Stores in all towns large and small are generally closed. In nearly all the cities liquor is sold under licence. In Colorado Springs, Boulder, and Greeley it is prohibited. In 1907 a local option law was passed allowing any city, ward, or precinct to prohibit all sales of liquor except by druggists on prescription. Little or no attempt is made in the large cities and the mountain towns to enforce the Sunday liquor law; but the reverse is the rule in most of the smaller towns in Eastern Colorado.

Legal Oaths

A statutory form of oath is prescribed: the affiant shall with his or her hand uplifted swear "by the ever living God". It has been unchanged since the first revision of the statutes. Any person having conscientious scruples against taking an oath is allowed to solemnly affirm. Interrupting religious meetings by profane swearing is made a misdemeanour by statute. The use of profane language is everywhere prohibited by city or town ordinance.

The State Penitentiary is at Cañon City. Each county has its jail for confinement of persons held for trial or convicted of misdemeanours. There is a State School of Reform for boys and another for girls. The latter was created by an Act providing substantially that all its officers must be women, and has been as conspicuous for mismanagement as the school for boys has been for successful results. The legislature in 1907 created a Juvenile Court for the care of neglected children.

Charitable Institutions and Bequests

Charitable Institutions of any sort may be incorporated under the Acts relating to corporations not organized for profit. Barring the question whether the old English statutes of mortmain would be held in force under a Colorado statute adopting, with limitations, the common law and Acts of the British Parliament prior to the fourth year of James I (1607), which point has never been decided in this State, there is no limitation on the power of such institutions to take property by deed or will and no limitations on the power of a testator to bequeath his property to them, except that neither husband nor wife can by will deprive the survivor of one half of his or her estate.

Church Property Exemptions

Any church organization may incorporate under provisions relating to religious societies (Rev. Stats. of 1908, §§ 1018 to 1033); but title to Catholic Church property as a rule is held by the bishop and the parishes have ordinarily no need to organize under these laws. Churches, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries not organized for profit are exempt from taxation. Public aid to any sectarian purpose is prohibited by the Constitution. Clergymen are not in terms exempt from jury duty, but are always excused as a matter of custom; They are specifically exempt from military duty; Each branch of the legislature selects a chaplain who opens sessions with prayer; Christmas is a legal holiday; Good Friday is not; Confessions made to any clergyman or priest are protected against disclosure.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage is a civil contract but may be performed by a clergyman of any denomination; The law of divorce is extremely loose. It may be granted for any of the usual statutory reasons, but the greatest abuse of the law is under the phrase called the sentimental cruelty clause, where the statute says it may be granted where either party has been guilty of acts of cruelty and that "such acts of cruelty may consist as well in the infliction of mental suffering as of bodily violence". Under this clause any discontented man or wife can frame a complaint which will state a case for divorce. The number of divorces has greatly increased since the adoption of woman suffrage. No one thing has done more to strengthen the moral influence of the Catholic Church in this State and command respect and gather converts from the denominations than its firm stand against divorce.

The ratio of deaths by suicide in 1900 was one in every 84, or 1.18 per cent, and the statistics of the State Board of Health do not indicate any notable increase since 1900.

ROBERT S. MORRISON.

Colossæ

A titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor, suppressed in 1894. Little is known about its history. The later name, Colassæ, is probably the old Phrygian form. Colossæ was at one time the chief city of South-Western Phrygia, lying on the trade-route from Sardis to Celænæ; it produced fine wool, the colour of which was called colossinus. The ruin of the city was brought about by the change of road system, the foundation of Laodicea, eleven miles distant, and severe earthquakes. It retained municipal independence, but at the time of Strabo (XII, viii, 4) it was "a small town". It had its own coinage under the empire. St. Paul (probably about 61) addressed an epistle from Rome to the inhabitants of Colossæ, who had perhaps been evangelized by him. Colossæ was the home of his companions, Archippus and Philemon of his very dear sister, Appia, and of Onesimus and Epaphras, who probably founded the Church of Colossæ. The ruins of the city are visible near Chonæ, in the vilayet of Smyrna, on the left bank of the Lycus (Tehuruk Su); they include the acropolis, an aqueduct, theatre, etc. There is also a curious petrifying river, the Ak Su. Under the Byzantine Empire the territory of Colossæ rose again to importance, and a strong fortress was built (perhaps by Justinian) at Chonæ, three miles south-south-east of Colossæ. The centre of population long remained at the old site, but about the eighth century it was moved to a shelf of land beneath the castle. Chonæ (vulgar Greek Khonés, Turk. Honas) is still a little village, twelve miles east of Denizli; it has been rendered famous by its miraculous church of St. Michael. Colossæ was a suffragan of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana. Besides St. Epaphras, two bishops are mentioned: Epiphanius in 451 and Cosmas in 692; Archippus and Philemon, especially the latter, are very doubtful. Chonæ was made an archbishopric about 858-60, and in some later "Notitiæ episcopatuum" appears as a metropolis without suffragans. Many titulars are known: Dositheus at Nicæ, in 787; Samuel, a friend of Photius, who sent him to Rome, was present at the Council of Constantinople in 866; Constantine, in 1028; Nicholas, in 1066 and 1080; in 1143 Nicetas, the godfather of the historian Nicetas Acominatus, who was born at Chonæ, as was his brother Michael, the famous Metropolitan of Athens.

LEQUIEN, I. 813; HAMILTON, Researches in Asia Minor (London, 1842), I, 507-14; RAMSAY, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 208-34; IDEM, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (London and New York, 1905); LE CAMUS, Voyage aux sept Eglises; BONNET, Narratio de miraculo a Michaele archangelo Chonis patrato (Paris, 1880).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Liturgical Colours

By a law of her liturgy the Church directs that the vestments worn by her sacred ministers, and the drapery used in the decoration of the altar should correspond in colour to that which is prescribed for the Office of the day. The colours thus sanctioned by the Church in connection with her public worship are called the liturgical colours. Here it will be enough to examine (1) their number; (2) the drapery and vestments affected by them; (3) their obligation; (4) their antiquity, and (5) their symbolism.

I. NUMBER

In the Roman Rite, since Pius V, colours are five in number, viz.: white, red, green, violet, and black. Rose colour is employed only on Lætare and Gaudete Sundays. Blue is prescribed in some dioceses of Spain for the Mass of the Immaculate Conception.

White is the colour proper to Trinity Sunday, the feasts of Our Lord, except those of His Passion, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, angels, confessors, virgins and women, who are not martyrs, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the chief feast of St. John the Evangelist, the feast of the Chains and of the Chair of St. Peter, the Conversion of St. Paul, All Saints, to consecration of churches and altars, the anniversaries of the election and coronation of the pope and of the election and consecration of bishops; also for the octaves of these feasts and the Offices de tempore from Holy Saturday to the vigil of Pentecost; it is used for votive Masses when the feasts have white, and for the nuptial Mass; also in services in connection with the Blessed Sacrament, at the burial of children, in the administration of baptism, Holy Viaticum, and matrimony.

Red is used the week of Pentecost, on the feasts of Christ's Passion and His Precious Blood, the Finding and Elevation of the Cross, the feasts of Apostles and martyrs; and in votive Masses of these feasts. It is used on Holy Innocents if the feast occur on Sunday and always on its octave.

Green is employed in Offices de tempore from the octave of the Epiphany to Septuagesima, and from the octave of Pentecost to Advent, except on ember-days and vigils during that time, and on Sundays occurring within an octave.

Violet is used during Advent and from Septuagesima to Easter, on vigils that are fast days, and on ember-days, except the vigil of Pentecost and the ember-days during the octave of Pentecost. Violet is also used for Mass on rogation-days, for votive Masses of the Passion and of penitential character, at the blessing of candles and of holy water. The stole used in the administration of penance and of extreme unction and in the first part of the baptismal ceremonies must be violet.

Black is used in offices for the dead, and on Good Friday.

II. AFFECTED VESTMENTS

The drapery and vestments affected by the law of liturgical colours are (a) the antependium of the altar, and as a matter of appropriateness, the tabernacle veil; (b) the burse and chalice veil; (c) maniple, stole, chasuble, cope, and humeral veil; (d) maniple, stole, tunic, and dalmatic of the sacred ministers, and also the broad stole and folded chasuble when employed. All these must correspond with the rules prescribing the use of each colour. The rubrical prescriptions regard the main or constitutive portion of each vestment, so that the borders or other ornamental accessories do not determine the quality of colour. Neither does the lining, but the Roman practice is to have it in harmony with the vestment itself, yellow however being generally adopted instead of pure white.

III. OBLIGATION

The obligation of using any particular colour begins with the First Vespers of the Office of which it is characteristic, or with the Matins if the Office has no First Vespers, and ceases as soon as the following Office begins. Vestments made of pure cloth of gold may be employed for red, white, and green colours (Decret. Authent., nn. 3145, 3646, ed. 1900); cloth of silver may be used instead of white. Multicoloured vestments cannot be used except for the predominant colour.

IV. ANTIQUITY

Benedict XIV (De Sacro Sacrificio Missæ I, VIII, n. 16) says that up to the fourth century white was the only liturgical colour in use. Other colours were introduced soon afterwards. Innocent III (d. 1216) is among the first to emphasize a distinction. He mentions four principal colours, white, red, green, black (De Sac. Alt. Mys., I, lxv) as of general use, and one, viz. violet, as occasionally employed. This latter was regularly used from the thirteenth century. An "Ordo Romanus" of the fourteenth century enumerates five. Between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries blue and yellow were common but they may not be used without very special authorization (Cong. of Rites, Sept., 1837).

V. SYMBOLISM

Outside of Rome uniformity of observance was effected in the second quarter of the nineteenth century by the abrogation of other uses. In the Western Church only the Ambrosian Rite (q.v.) retains its peculiar colours. Most of the Oriental rites have no prescribed liturgical colours. The Greek Rite (q.v.) alone has a fixed usage but even among them it is not of strict obligation. The Ruthenians follow the Roman regulation since 1891. The variety of liturgical colours in the Church arose from the mystical meaning attached to them. Thus white, the symbol of light, typifies innocence and purity, joy and glory; red, the language of fire and blood, indicates burning charity and the martyrs' generous sacrifice; green, the hue of plants and trees, bespeaks the hope of life eternal; violet, the gloomy cast of the mortified, denotes affliction and melancholy; while black, the universal emblem of mourning, signifies the sorrow of death and the sombreness of the tomb.

LEGG, Notes on History of Liturgical Colours (London, 1882); VAN DER STAPPEN, De Cebratione Missæ (Mechlin. 1902),120-133; MACALISTER, Ecclesiastical Vestments (London, 1896): pp. 223-28; BRAUN, Die liturgirsche Gewandung (Freiburg im Br. 1907), pp. 728-60; GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (tr., St. Louis, 1902), 297-312; ROCK, Church of Our Fathers (2nd edition, London 1904), II, 213 sq.; WILPERT, Gewandung der Christen (Freiburg, 1898).

PATRICK MORRISROE

St. Columba of Terryglass

A son of Crinthainn and a disciple of St. Finnian of Clonard. When the latter was in extremis, from the plague, Columba administered Holy Viaticum. Having completed his studies, he took charge of Caemban, Fintan, and Mocumin, who are numbered among the saints. He founded the celebrated monastery of Tirdaglas, or Terryglass, 548. It is said that he visited Tours and brought thence relics of St. Martin. He died of the plague, 13 December, 552, and was buried within the precincts of his own monastery at Terryglass. Some fifteen other saints of Ireland, bearing the name Columba, are mentioned in the Martyrology of Gorman.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

St. Columba of Sens

Suffered towards the end of the third century, probably under the Emperor Aurelian. She is said to have been beheaded near a fountain called d'Azon; and the tradition is that her body was left by her murderers on the ground, until it was buried by a man called Aubertus, in thanksgiving for his restoration to sight on his invoking her. A chapel was afterwards built over her relics; and, later on, rose the Abbey of Sens, which at one time was a place of pilgrimage in her honour. She is also said to have been patroness of the parish church of Chevilly in the Diocese of Paris, but her whole his history is somewhat legendary.

F.M. CAPES

St. Columba (of Spain)

A Spanish nun, of whom it is related that she was beheaded by the Moors at the monastery of Tabanos in 853. Her body is said to have been thrown into the Guadalquivir, but was rescued by the Christians. Her relics were kept and venerated in Old Castile at two churches, the priory of St. Columba and the royal Abbey of Our Lady at Nagara.

F.M. CAPES

St. Columba

Abbot of Iona, b. at Garten, County Donegal, Ireland, 7 December, 521; d. 9 June, 597. He belonged to the Clan O'Donnell, and was of royal descent. His father's name was Fedhlimdh and that of his mother Eithne. On his father's side he was great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish king of the fourth century. His baptismal name was Colum, which signifies a dove, hence the latinized form Columba. It assumes another form in Colum-cille, the suffix meaning "of the Churches". He was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise, now Temple-Douglas, by a priest named Cruithnechan, who afterwards became his tutor or foster-father. When sufficiently advanced in letters he entered the monastic school of Moville under St. Finnian who had studied at St. Ninian's "Magnum Monasterium" on the shores of Galloway. Columba at Moville monastic life and received the diaconate. In the same place his sanctity first manifested itself by miracles. By his prayers, tradition says, he converted water into wine for the Holy Sacrifice (Adam., II, i). Having completed his training at Moville, he travelled southwards into Leinster, where he became a pupil of an aged bard named Gemman. On leaving him, Columba entered the monastery of Clonard, governed at that time by Finnian, a remarkable, like his namesake of Moville, for sanctity and learning. Here he imbibed the traditions of the Welsh Church, for Finnian had been trained in the schools of St. David. Here also he became one those twelve Clonard disciples known in subsequent history as the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. About this same time he was promoted to the priesthood by bishop Etchen of Clonfad. The story that St. Finnian wished Columba to be consecrated bishop, but through a mistake only priest's orders were conferred, is regarded by competent authorities as the invention of a later age (Reeves, Adam., 226).

Another preceptor of Columba was St. Mobhi, whose monastery at Glasnevin was frequented by such famous men as St. Canice, St. Comgall, and St. Ciaran. A pestilence which devastated Ireland in 544 caused the dispersion of Mobhi's disciples, and Columba returned to Ulster, the land of his kindred. The following years were marked by the foundation of several important monasteries, Derry, Durrow, and Kells. Derry and Durrow were always specially dear to Columba. While at Derry it is said that he planned a pilgrimage to Rome and Jerusalem, but did not proceed farther than Tours. Thence he brought a copy of those gospels that had lain on the bosom of St. Martin for the space of 100 years. This relic was deposited in Derry (Skene, Celtic Scotland, II, 483). Columba left Ireland and passed over into Scotland in 563. The motives for this migration have been frequently discussed. Bede simply says: "Venit de Hibernia . . . praedicaturus verbum Dei" (H. E., III, iv); Adarnnan: "pro Christo perigrinari volens enavigavit" (Praef., II). Later writers state that his departure was due to the fact that he had induced the clan Neill to rise and engage in battle against King Diarmait at Cooldrevny in 561. The reasons alleged for this action of Columba are: (1) The king's violation of the right of sanctuary belonging to Columba's person as a monk on the occasion of the murder of Prince Curnan, the saint's kinsman; (2) Diarmait's adverse judgment concerning the copy Columba had secretly made of St. Finnian's psalter. Columba is said to have supported by his prayers the men of the North who were fighting while Finnian did the same for Diarmait's men. The latter were defeated with a loss of three thousand. Columba's conscience smote him, and he had recourse to his confessor, St. Molaise, who imposed this severe penance: to leave Ireland and preach the Gospel so as to gain as many souls to Christ as lives lost at Cooldrevny, and never more to look upon his native land. Some writers hold that these are legends invented by the bards and romancers of a later age, because there is no mention of them by the earliest authorities (O'Hanlon, Lives of the Ir. Saints, VI, 353). Cardinal Moran accepts no other motive than that assigned by Adamnan, "a desire to carry the Gospel to a pagan nation and to win souls to God". (Lives ot Irish Saints in Great Britain, 67). Archbishop Healy, on the contrary, considers that the saint did incite to battle, and exclaims: " O felix culpa . . . which produced so much good both for Erin and Alba (Schools and Scholars, 311).

IONA

Columba was in his forty-fourth year when he departed from Ireland. He and his twelve companions crossed the sea in a currach of wickerwork covered with hides. They landed at Iona on the eve of Pentecost, 12 May, 563. The island, according to Irish authorities, was granted to the monastic colonists by King Conall of Dalriada, Columba's kinsman. Bede attributes the gift to the Picts (Fowler, p. lxv). It was a convenient situation, being midway between his countrymen along the western coast and the Picts of Caledonia. He and his brethren proceeded at once to erect their humble dwellings, consisting of a church, refectory, and cells, constructed of wattles and rough planks. After spending some years among the Scots of Dalriada, Columba began the great work of his life, the conversion of the Northern Picts. Together with St. Comgall and St. Canice (Kenneth) he visited King Brude in his royal residence near Inverness. Admittance was refused to the missionaries, and the gates were closed and bolted, but before the sign of the cross the bolts flew back, the doors stood open, and the monks entered the castle. Awe-struck by so evident a miracle, the king listened to Columba with reverence; and was baptized. The people soon followed the example set them, and thus was inaugurated a movement that extended itself to the whole of Caledonia. Opposition was not wanting, and it came chiefly from the Druids, who officially represented the paganism of the nation.

The thirty-two remaining years of Columba's life were mainly spent in preaching the Christian Faith to the inhabitants of the glens and wooded straths of Northern Scotland. His steps can be followed not only through the Great Glen, but eastwards also, into Aberdeenshire. The "Book of Deer" (p. 91) tells us how he and Drostan came, as God had shown them to Aberdour in Buchan, and how Bede, a Pict, who was high steward of Buchan, gave them the town in freedom forever. The preaching of the saint was confirmed by many miracles, and he provided for the instruction of his converts by the erection of numerous churches and monasteries. One of his journeys brought him to Glasgow, where he met St. Mungo, the apostle of Strathclyde. He frequently visited Ireland; in 570 he attended the synod of Drumceatt, in company with the Scottish King Aidan, whom shortly before he had inaugurated successor of Conall of Dalriada. When not engaged in missionary journeys, he always resided at Iona. Numerous strangers sought him there, and they received help for soul and body. From Iona he governed those numerous communities in Ireland and Caledonia, which regarded him as their father and founder. This accounts for the unique position occupied by the successors of Columba, who governed the entire province of the Northern Picts although they had received priest's orders only. It was considered unbecoming that any successor in the office of Abbot of Iona should possess a dignity higher than of the founder. The bishops were regarded as being of a superior order, but subject nevertheless to the jurisdiction of the abbot. At Lindisfarne the monks reverted to the ordinary law and were subject to a bishop (Bede, H.E., xxvii).

Columba is said never to have spent an hour without study, prayer, or similar occupations. When at home he was frequently engaged in transcribing. On the eve of his death he was engaged in the work of transcription. It is stated that he wrote 300 books with his own hand, two of which, "The Book of Durrow" and the psalter called "The Cathach", have been preserved to the present time. The psalter enclosed in a shrine, was originally carried into battle by the O' Donnells as a pledge of victory. Several of his compositions in Latin and Irish have come down to us, the best known being the poem "Altus Prosator", published in the "Liber Hymnorum", and also in another form by the late Marquess of Bute. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the rule attributed to him was really his work.

In the spring of 597 he knew that his end was approaching. On Saturday, 8 June, he ascended the hill overlooking his monastery and blessed for the last time the home so dear to him. That afternoon he was present at Vespers, and later, when the bell summoned the community to the midnight service, he forestalled the others and entered the church without assistance. But he sank before the altar, and in that place breathed forth his soul to God, surrounded by his disciples. This happened a little after midnight between the 8th and 9th of June, 597. He was in the seventy-seventh year of his age. The monks buried him within the monastic enclosure. After the lapse of a century or more his bones were disinterred and placed within a suitable shrine. But as Northmen and Danes more than once invaded the island, the relics of St. Columba were carried for purposes of safety into Ireland and deposited in the church of Downpatrick. Since the twelfth century history is silent regarding them. His books and garments were held in veneration at Iona, they were exposed and carried in procession, and were the means of working miracles (Adam., II, xlv). His feast is kept in Scotland and Ireland on the 9th of June. In the Scottish Province of st Andrews and Edinburgh there is a Mass and Office proper to the festival, which ranks as a double of the second class with an octave. He is patron of two Scottish dioceses Argyle and the Isles and Dunkeld. According to tradition St. Columba was tall and of dignified mien. Adamnan says: "He was angelic in appearance, graceful in speech, holy in work" (Praef., II). His voice was strong, sweet, and sonorous capable at times of being heard at a great distance. He inherited the ardent temperament and strong passions of his race. It has been sometimes said that he was of an angry and vindictive spirit not only because of his supposed part in the battle of Cooldrevny but also because of irritant related by Adamnan (II, xxiii sq.) But the deeds that roused his indignation were wrongs done to others, and the retribution that overtook the perpetrators was rather predicted than actually invoked. Whatever faults were inherent in his nature he overcame and he stands before the world conspicuous for humiiity and charity not only towards has brethren, but towards strangers also. He was generous and warm-hearted, tender and kind even to dumb creatures. He was ever ready to sympathize with the joys and sorrows of others. His fasts and vigils were carried to a great extent. The stone pillow on which he slept is said to be still preserved in Iona. His chastity of body and purity of mind are extolled by all his biographers. Notwithstanding his wonderful austerities, Adamnan assures us he was beloved by all, "for a holy joyousness that ever beamed from his countenance revealed the gladness with which the Holy Spirit filled his soul". (Praef., II.)

INFLUENCE, AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROME

He was not only a great missionary saint who won a whole kingdom to Christ, but he was a statesman, a scholar, a poet, and the founder of numerous churches and monasteries. His name is dear to Scotsmen and Irishmen alike. And because of his great and noble work even non-Catholics hold his memory in veneration. For the purposes of controversy it has been maintained some that St. Columba ignored papal supremacy, because he entered upon his mission without the pope's authorization. Adamnan is silent on the subject; but his work is neither exhaustive as to Columba's life, nor does it pretend to catalogue the implicit and explicit belief of his patron. Indeed, in those days a mandate from the pope was not deemed essential for the work which St. Columba undertook. This may be gathered from the words of St. Gregory the Great, relative to the neglect of the British clergy towards the pagan Saxons (Haddan and Stubbs, III, 10). Columba was a son of the Irish Church, which taught from the days of St. Patrick that matters of greater moment should be referred to the Holy See for settlement. St. Columbanus, Columba's fellow-country-man and fellow-churchman, asked for papal judgment (judicium) on the Easter question; so did the bishops and abbots of Ireland. There is not the slightest evidence to prove that St. Columba differed on this point from his fellow-countryrnen. Moreover, the Stowe Missal, which, according to the best authority, represents the Mass of the Celtic Church during the early part of the seventh century, contains in its Canon prayers for the pope more emphatic than even those of the Roman Liturgy. To the further objection as to the supposed absence of the cultus of Our Lady, it may be pointed out that the same Stowe Missal contains before its Canon the invocation "Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis", which epitomizes all Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin. As to the Easter difficulty Bede thus sums up the reasons for the discrepancy: "He [Columba] left successors distinguished for great charity, Divine love, and strict attention to the rules of discipline following indeed uncertain cycles in the computation of the great festival of Easter, because, far away as they were out of the world, no one had supplied them with the synodal decrees relating to the Paschal observance" (H.E., III, iv). As far as can be ascertained no proper symbolical representation of St. Columba exists. The few attempts that have been made are for the most part mistaken. A suitable pictorial representation would exhibit him, clothed in the habit and cowl usually worn by the Basilian or Benedictine monks, with Celtic tonsure and crosier. His identity could be best determined by showing him standing near the shell-strewn shore, with currach hard by, and the Celtic cross and ruins of lona in the background.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

St. Columbanus

Abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio, born in West Leinster, Ireland, in 543; died at Bobbio, Italy, 21 November, 615.

His life was written by Jonas, an Italian monk of the Columban community, at Bobbio, c. 643. This author lived during the abbacy of Attala, Columbanus's immediate successor, and his informants had been companions of the saint. Mabillon in the second volume of his "Acta Sanctorum O.S.B." gives the life in full, together with an appendix on the miracles of the saint, written by an anonymous member of the Bobbio community.

Columbanus, whose birth took place the year St. Benedict died, was from childhood well instructed. He was handsome and prepossessing in appearance, and this exposed him to the shameless temptations of several of his countrywomen. He also had to struggle with his own temptations. At last he betook himself to a religious woman, who advised him thus:

Twelve years ago I fled from the world, and shut myself up in this cell. Hast thou forgotten Samson, David and Solomon, all led astray by the love of women? There is no safety for thee, young man, except in flight.

He thereupon decided to act on this advice and retire from the world. He encountered opposition, especially from his mother, who strove to detain him by casting herself before him on the threshhold of the door. But, conquering the feelings of natures he passed over the prostrate form and left his home forever. His first master was Sinell Abbot of Cluaninis in Lough Erne. Under his tuition he composed a commentary on the Psalms. He then betook himself to the celebrated monastery of Bangor on the coast of Down, which at that time had for its abbot St. Comgall. There he embraced the monastic state, and for many years led a life conspicuous for fervour, regularity, and learning. At about the age of forty he seemed to hear incessantly the voice of God bidding him preach the Gospel in foreign lands. At first his abbot declined to let him go, but at length he gave consent.

Columbanus set sail with twelve companions; their names have thus come down to us: St. Attala, Columbanus the Younger, Cummain, Domgal, Eogain, Eunan, St. Gall, Gurgano, Libran, Lua, Sigisbert and Waldoleno (Strokes, "Apennines", p. 112). The little band passed over to Britain, landing probably on the Scottish coast. They remained but a short time in England, and then crossed over to France, where they arrived probably in 585. At once they began their apostolic mission. Wherever they went the people, were struck by their modesty, patience, and humility. France at that period needed such a band of monks and preachers. Owing partly to the incursions of barbarians, and partly due to the remissness of the clergy, vice and impiety were prevalent. Columbanus, by his holiness, zeal, and learning, was eminently fitted for the work that lay before him. He and his followers soon made their way to the court of Gontram, King of Burgundy. Jonas calls it the court of Sigisbert, King of Austrasia and Burgundy, but this is manifestly a blunder, for Sigisbert had been slain in 575. The fame of Columbanus had preceded him. Gontram gave him a gracious reception, inviting him to remain in his kingdom. The saint complied, and selected for his abode the half-ruined Roman fortress of Annegray in the solitudes of the Vosges Mountains. Here the abbot and his monks led the simplest of lives, their food oftentimes consisting of nothing but forest herbs, berries, and the bark of young trees. The fame of Columbanus's sanctity drew crowds to his monastery. Many, both nobles and rustics, asked to be admitted into the community. Sick persons came to be cured through their prayers. But Columbanus loved solitude. Often he would withdrew to a cave seven miles distant, with a single companion, who acted as messenger between himself and his brothren. After a few years the ever-increasing number of his disciples oblige him to build another monastery. Columbanus accordingly obtained from King Gontram the Gallo-Roman castle named Luxeuil, some eight miles distant from Annegray. It was in a wild district, thickly covered with pine forests and brushwood. This foundation of the celebrated Abbey of Luxueil, took place in 590. But these two monasteries did not suffice for the numbers who came, and a third had to be erected at Fontaines. The superiors of these houses always remained subordinate to Columbanus. It is said this time, he was able to institute a perpetual service of praise, known as Laus perennis, by which choir succeded choir, both day and night (Montalembert, Monks of the West II, 405). For these flourishing communities he wrote his rule, which embodies the customs of Bangor and other Celtic monasteries.

For wellnigh twenty years Columbanus resided in France and during that time observed the unreformed paschal computation. But a dispute arose. The Frankish bishops were not too well disposed towards this stranger abbot, because of his ever-increasing influence, and at last they showed their hostility. They objected to his Celtic Easter and his exclusion of men as well as women from the precincts of his monasteries. The councils of Gaul held in the first half of the sixth century had given to bishops absolute authority over religious communities, even going so far as to order the abbots to appear periodically before their respective bishops to receive reproof or advice, as might be considered necessary. These enactments, being contrary to the custom of the Celtic monasteries, were readily accepted by Columbanus. In 602 the bishops assembled to judge him. He did not appear, lest, as he tells us, "he might contend in words", but instead addressed a letter to the prelates in which he speaks with a strange mixture of freedom, reverence, and charity. In it he admonishes them to hold synods more frequently, and advises that they pay attention to matters equally important with that of the date of Easter. As to his paschal cycle he says: "I am not the author of this divergence. I came as a poor stranger into these parts for the cause of Christ, Our Saviour. One thing alone I ask of you, holy Fathers, permit me to live in silence in these forests, near the bones of seventeen of my brethren now dead." When the Frankish bishops still insisted that the abbot was wrong, then, in obedience to St. Patrick's canon, he laid the question before Pope St. Gregory. He dispatched two letters to that pontiff, but they never reached him, "through Satan's intervention". The third letter is extant, but no trace of an answer appears in St. Gregory's correspondence, owing probably to the fact that the pope died in 604, about the time it reached Rome. In this letter he defends the Celtic custom with considerable freedom, but the tone is affectionate. He prays "the holy Pope, his Father", to direct towards him "the strong support of his authority, to transmit the verdict of his favour". Moreover, he apologizes "for presuming to argue as it were, with him who sits in the chair of Peter, Apostle and Bearer of the Keys". He directed another epistle to Pope Boniface IV, in which he prays that, if it be not contrary to the Faith, he confirm the tradition of his elders, so that by the papal decision (judicium) he and his monks may be enabled to follow the rites of their ancestors. Before Pope Bonifice's answer (which has been lost) was given, Columbanus was outside the jurisdiction of the Frankish bishops. As we hear no further accusation on the Easter question -- not even in those brought against his successor, Eustasius of Luxeuil in 624 -- it would appear that after Columbanus had removed into Italy he gave up the Celtic Easter (cf. Acta SS. O.S.B., II, p. 7).

In addition to the Easter question Columbanus had to wage war against vice in the royal household. The young King Thierry, to whose kingdom Luxeuil belonged, was living a life of debauchery. He was completely in the hands of his grandmother, Queen Brunehault (Brunehild). On the death of King Gontram the succession passed to his nephew, Childebert II, son of Brunehault. At his death the latter left two sons, Theodebert II and Thierry II, both minors. Theodebert succeeded to Austrasia, Thierry to Burgundy, but Brunehault constituted herself their guardian, and held in her own power the governments of the two kingdoms. As she advanced in years she sacrificed everything to the passion of sovereinity, hence she encouraged Thierry in the practice concubinage in order that there might be no rival queen. Thierry, however, had a veneration for Columbanus, and often visited him. On these occasions the saint admonished and rebuked him, but in vain. Brunehault became enraged with Columbanus, stirred up the bishops and nobles to find fault with his rules regarding monastic enclosure. Finally, Thierry and his party went to Luxeuil and ordered the abbot to conform to the usages of the country. Columbanus refused, whereupon he was taken prisoner to Besancon to await further orders. Taking advantage of the absence of restraint he speedily returned to his monastery. On hearing this, Thierry and Brunehault sent soldiers to drive him back to Ireland. None but Irish monks were to accompany him. Accordingly, he was hurried to Nevers, made to embark on the Loire, and thus proceed to Nantes. At Tours he visited the tomb of St. Martin and sent a message to Thierry that within three years he and his children would perish. At Nantes, before the embarkation, he addressed a letter to his monks, full of affection. It is a memorial of the love and tenderness which existed in that otherwise austere and passionate soul. In it he desires all to obey Attala, whom he requests to abide with the community unless strife should arise on the Easter question. His letter concludes thus "They come to tell me the ship is ready. The end of my parchment compels me to finish my letter. Love is not orderly; it is this which has made it confused. Farewell, dear hearts of mine; pray for me that I may live in God." As soon as they set sail, such a storm arose that ship was driven ashore. The captain would have nothing more to do with these holy men; they were thus free to go where they pleased. Columbanus made his way to the friendly King Clothaire at Soissons in Neustria where he was gladly welcomed. Clothaire in vain pressed him to remain in his territory. Columbanus left Neustria in 611 for the court of King Theodebert of Austrasia. At Metz he received an honourable welcome, and then proceeding to Mainz, he embarked upon the Rhine in order to reach the Suevi and Alamanni, to whom he wished to preach the Gospel. Ascending the river and its tributaries, the Aar and the Limmat, he came to the Lake of Zurich. Tuggen was chosen as a centre from which to evangelize, but the work was not successful. Instead of producing fruit, the zeal of Columbanus only excited persecution. In despair he resolved to pass on by way of Arbon to Bregenz on Lake Constance, where there were still some traces of Christianity. Here the saint found an oratory dedicated to St. Aurelia, into which the people had brought three brass images of their tutelary deities. He commanded St. Gall, who knew the language, to preach to the inhabitants, and many were converted. The images were destroyed, and Columbanus blessed the little church, placing the relics of St. Aurelia beneath the altar. A monastery was erected, and the brethren forthwith observed their regular life. After about a year, in consequence of another rising against the community, Columbanus resolved to cross the Alps into Italy. An additional reason for his departure was the fact that the arms of Thierry had prevailed against Theodebert, and thus the country on the banks of the Upper Rhine had become the property of his enemy.

On his arrival at Milan in 612, Columbanus met with a kindly welcome from King Agilulf and Queen Theodelinda. He immediately began to confute the Arians and wrote a treatise against their teaching, which has been lost. At the request of the king, he wrote a letter to Pope Boniface on the debated subject of "The Three Chapters". These writings were considered to favour Nestorianism. Pope St. Gregory, however, tolerated in Lombardy those persons who defended them, among whom was King Agilulf. Columbanus would probably have taken no active part in this matter had not the king pressed him so to do. But on this occasion his zeal certainly outran his knowledge. The letter opens with all apology that a "foolish Scot" should be charged to write for a Lombard king. He acquaints the pope with the imputations brought against him, and he is particularly severe with the memory of Pope Vigilius. He entreats the pontiff to prove his orthodoxy and assemble a council. He says that his freedom of speech accords with the usage of his country. "Doubtless", Montalembert remarks, "some of the expressions which he employs should be now regarded as disrespectful and justly rejected But in those young and vigorous times, faith and austerity could be more indulgent" (II, 440). On the other hand, the letter expresses the most affectionate and impassioned devotion to the Holy See. The whole, however, may be judged from this fragment: "We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul . . . Neither heretic, nor Jew, nor schismatic has ever been among us; but the Catholic Faith, Just as it was first delivered to us by yourselves, the successors of the Apostles, is held by us unchanged . . . we are bound [ devincti] to the Chair of Peter, and although Rome is great and renowned, through that Chair alone is she looked on as great and illustrious among us . . .On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you [the pope] are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches". If zeal for orthodoxy caused him to overstep the limits of discretion, his real attitude towards Rome is sufficiently clear. He declares the pope to be: "his Lord and Father in Christ", "The Chosen Watchman", "The Prelate most dear to all the Faithful", "The most beautiful Head of all the Churches of the whole of Europe", "Pastor of Pastors", "The Highest", "The First", "The First Pastor, set higher than all mortals", "Raised near into all the Celestial Beings", "Prince of the Leaders", "His Father", "His immediate Patron", "The Steersman", "The Pilot of the Spiritual Ship" (Allnatt, "Cathedra Petri", 106).

But it was necessary that, in Italy, Columbanus should have a settled abode, so the king gave him a tract of land called Bobbio, between Milan and Genoa, near the River Trebbia, situated in a defile of the Apennines. On his way thither he taught the Faith in the town of Mombrione, which is called San Colombano to this day. Padre della Torre considers that the saint made two journeys into Italy, and that these have been confounded by Jonas. On the first occasion he went to Rome and received from Pope Gregory many sacred relics (Stokes, Apennines, 132). This may possibly explain the traditional spot in St. Peter's, where St. Gregory and St. Columba are supposed to have met (Moran, Irish SS. in Great Britain,105). At Bobbio the saint repaired the half-ruined church of St. Peter, and erected his celebrated abbey, which for centuries was stronghold of orthodoxy in Northern Italy. Thither came Clothaire's messengers inviting the aged abbot to return, now that his enemies were dead. But he could not go. He sent a request that the king would always protect his dear monks at Luxeuil. He prepared for death by retiring to his cave on the mountain-side overlooking the Trebbia, where, according to a tradition, he had dedicated an oratory to Our Lady (Montalembert, "Monks of the West", II, 444). His body has been preserved in the abbey church at Bobbio, and many miracles are said to have been wrought there through his intercession. In 1482 the relics were placed in a new shrine and laid beneath the altar of the crypt, where they are still venerated. But the altar and shrine are once more to be restored, and for this end in 1907 all appeal was made by Cardinal Logue, and there is every prospect of the work being speedily accomplished. The sacristy at Bobbio possesses a portion of the skull of the saint, his knife, wooden cup, bell, and an ancient water vessel, formerly containing sacred relics and said to have been given him by St. Gregory. According to certain authorities, twelve teeth of the saint were taken from the tomb in the fifteenth century and kept in the treasury, but these have now disappeared (Stokes, Apennines, p. 183). St. Columbanus is named in the Roman Martyrology on 21 November, but his feast is kept by the Benedictines and throughout Ireland on 24 November. Among his principal miracles are: (1) procuring of food for a sick monk and curing the wife of his benefactor; (2) escape from hurt when surrounded by wolves; (3) obedience of a bear which evacuated a cave at his biddings; (4) producing a spring of water near his cave; (5) repletion of the Luxeuil granary when empty; (6) multiplication of bread and beer for his community; (7) curing of the sick monks, who rose from their beds at his request to reap the harvest; (8) giving sight to a blind man at Orleans; (9) destruction by his breath of a cauldron of beer prepared for a pagan festival; (10) taming a bear, and yoking it to a plough.

Like other men, Columbanus was not faultless. In the cause of God he was impetuous and even head-strong, for by nature he was eager, passionate, and dauntless. These qualities were both the source of his power and the cause of mistakes. But his virtues were very remarkable. He shared with other saints a great love for God's creatures. As he walked in the woods, the birds would alight upon his shoulder that he might caress them and the squirrels would run down from the trees and nestle in the folds of his cowl. The fascination of his saintly personality drew numerous communities around him. That he possessed real affection for others is abundantly manifest in his letter to his brethren. Archbishop Healy eulogises him thus: "A man more holy, more chaste, more self-denying, a man with loftier aims and purer heart than Columbanus was never born in the Island of Saints" (Ireland's Ancient Schools, 378). Regarding his attitude towards the Holy See, although with Celtic warmth and flow of words he could defend mere custom, there is nothing in his strongest expressions which implies that, in matters of faith, he for a moment doubted Rome's supreme authority. His influence in Europe was due to the conversions he effected and to the rule that he composed. What gave rise to his apostolate? Possibly the restless energy of the Celtic character, which, not finding sufficient scope in Ireland, directed itself in the cause of Christ to foreign lands. It may be that the example and success of St. Columba in Caledonia stimulated him to similar exertions. The example, however, of Columbanus in the sixth century stands out as the prototype of missionary enterprise towards the countries of Europe, so eagerly follows up from England and Ireland by such men as Killian, Virgilius, Donatus, Wilfrid, Willibrord, Swithbert, and Boniface. If Columbanus abbey in Italy became a citadel of faith and learning, Luxeuil in France became the nursery of saints and apostles. From its walls went forth men who carried his rule, together with the Gospel, into France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. There are said to have been sixty-three such apostles (Stokes, Forests of France, 254). These disciples of Columbanus are accredited with founding over one hundred different monasteries (ib., 74). The canton and town still bearing the name of St. Gall testify how well one disciple succeeded.

Columbanus has left us his own writings. They demonstrate that his attainments were of no mean order. He continued his literary studies till the very eve of his death. His works (Migne P.L. LXXX) include: (1) "Penitencial" which prescribes penances according to guilt, a useful guide in the absence of elaborate treatises on moral theology; (2) "Seventeen short Sermons"; (3) "Six Epistles"; (4) "Latin Poems"; (5) "A Monastic Rule". This Last is much shorter than that of St. Benedict, consisting of only ten chapters. The first six of these treat of obedience, silence, food, poverty, humility, and chastity. In these there is much in common with the Benedictine code, except that the fasting is more rigorous. Chapter vii deals with the choir Offices. Sunday Martins in winter consisted of sevent-five psalms and twenty-five antiphone--three psalms to each antiphone. In spring and autumn these were reduced to thirty-six, and in summer to twenty-four, Fewer were said on week days. The day hours consisted of Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. Three psalms were said at each of these Offices, except Vespers, when twelve psalms were said. Chapter x regulates penances for offences, and it is here that the Rule of St. Columbanus differs so widely from that of St. Benedict. Stripes or fasts were enjoined for the smallest faults. The habit of the monks consisted of a tunic of undyed wool, over which was worn the cuculla, or cowl, of the same material. A great deal of time was devoted to various kinds of manual labour. The Rule of St: Columbanus was approved of by the Council of Macon in 627, but it was destined before the close of the century to be superseded by that of St. Benedict. For several centuries in some of the greater monasteries the two rules were observed conjointly. In art St. Columbanus is represented bearded bearing the monastic cowl, he holds in his hand a book with an Irish satchel, and stands in the midst of wolves. Sometimes he is depicted in the attitude of taming a bear, or with sunbeams over his head (Husenheth, "Emblems", p. 33).

COLUMBA EDMONDS

Christopher Columbus

(Italian Cristoforo Colombo; Spanish Cristoval Colon.)

Born at Genoa, or on Genoese territory, probably 1451; died at Valladolid, Spain, 20 May 1506.

His family was respectable, but of limited means, so that the early education of Columbus was defective. Up to his arrival in Spain (1485) only one date has been preserved. His son Fernando, quoting from his father's writings says that in February, 1467, he navigated the seas about "Tile" (probably Iceland). Columbus himself in a letter to King Ferdinand says that he began to navigate at the age of fourteen, though in the journal of his first voyage (no longer in existence), in 1493, he was said to have been on the sea twenty-three years, which would make him nineteen when he first became a mariner.

The early age at which he began his career as a sailor is not surprising for a native of Genoa, as the Genoese were most enterprising and daring seamen. Columbus is said in his early days to have been a corsair, especially in the war against the Moors, themselves merciless pirates. He is also supposed to have sailed as far south as the coast of Guinea before he was sixteen years of age. Certain it is that while quite young he became a thorough and practical navigator, and later acquired a fair knowledge of astronomy. He also gained a wide acquaintance with works on cosmography such as Ptolemy and the "Imago Mundi" of Cardinal d'Ailly, besides entering into communication with the cosmographers of his time. The fragment of a treatise written by him and called by his son Fernando "The Five Habitable Zones of the Earth" shows a degree of information unusual for a sailor of his day. As in the case of most of the documents relating to the life of Columbus the genuineness of the letters written in 1474 by Paolo Toscanelli, a renowned physicist of Florence, to Columbus and a member of the household of King Alfonso V of Portugal, has been attacked on the ground of the youth of Columbus, although they bears signs of authenticity. The experiences and researches referred to fit in satisfactorily with the subsequent achievements of Columbus. For the rest, the early part of Columbus's life is interwoven with incidents, most of which are unsupported by evidence, though quite possible. His marriage about 1475 to a Portuguese lady whose name is given sometimes as Doña Felipa Moniz and sometimes as Doña Felipa Perestrella seems certain.

Columbus seems to have arrived in Portugal about 1471, although 1474 is also mentioned and supported by certain indications. He vainly tried to obtain the support of the King of Portugal for his scheme to discover the Far East by sailing westward, a scheme supposed to have been suggested by his brother Bartholomew, who is said to have been earning a livelihood at Lisbon by designing marine charts. Columbus went to Spain in 1485, and probably the first assistance he obtained there was from the Duke of Medina Celi, Don Luis de la Cerda, for whom he performed some services that brought him a compensation of 3000 maravedis in May, 1487. He lived about two years at the home of the duke and made unsuccessful endeavors to interest him in his scheme of maritime exploration. His attempts to secure the help of the Duke of Medina Sidonia were equally unproductive of results. No blame attaches to the noblemen for declining to undertake an enterprise which only rulers of nations could properly carry out. Between 1485 and 1488 Columbus began his relations with Doña Beatriz Enriquez de Arana, or Harana, of a good family of the city of Cordova, from which sprang his much beloved son Fernando, next to Christopher and his brother Bartholomew the most gifted of the Colombos.

Late in 1485 or early in 1486, Columbus appeared twice before the court to submit his plans and while the Duke of Medina Celi may have assisted him to some extent, the chief support came from the royal treasurer, Alonzo de Quintanilla, Friar Antonio de Marchena (confounded by Irving with Father Perez of La Rábida), and Diego de Deza, Bishop of Placencia. Columbus himself declared that these two priests were always his faithful friends. Marchena also obtained for him the valuable sympathy of Cardinal Gonzalez de Mendoza. Through the influence of these men the Government appointed a junta or commission of ecclesiastics that met at Salamanca late in 1486 or early in 1487, in the Dominican convent of San Esteban to investigate the scheme, which they finally rejected. The commission had no connection with the celebrated University of Salamanca, but was under the guidance of the prior of Prado. It seems that Columbus gave but scant and unsatisfactory information to the commission, probably through fear that his ideas might be improperly made use of and he be robbed of the glory and advantages that he expected to derive from his project. This may account for the rejection of his proposals. The prior of Prado was a Hieronymite, while Columbus was under the especial protection of the Dominicans. Among his early friends in Spain was Luis de Santangel, whom Irving calls "receiver of the ecclesiastical revenues of Aragon", and who afterwards advanced to the queen the funds necessary for the first voyage. If Santangel was receiver of the church revenues and probably treasurer and administrator, it was the Church that furnished the means (17,000 ducats) for the admiral's first voyage.

It would be unjust to blame King Ferdinand for declining the proposals of Columbus after the adverse report of the Salamanca commission, which was based upon objections drawn from Seneca and Ptolemy rather than upon the opinion of St. Augustine in the "De Civitate Dei". The king was then preparing to deal the final blow to Moorish domination in Spain after the struggle of seven centuries, and his financial resources were taxed to the utmost. Moreover, he was not easily carried away by enthusiasm and, though we now recognize the practical value of the plans of Columbus, at the close of the fifteenth century it seemed dubious, to say the least, to a cool-headed ruler, wont to attend first to immediate necessities. The crushing of the Moorish power in the peninsula was then of greater moment than the search after distant lands for which, furthermore, there were not the means in the royal treasury. Under these conditions Columbus, always in financial straits himself and supported by the liberality of friends, bethought himself of the rulers of France and England. In 1488 his brother Bartholomew, as faithful as sagacious, tried to induce one or the other of them to accept the plans of Christopher, but failed. The idea was too novel to appeal to either. Henry VII of England was too cautious to entertain proposals from a comparatively unknown seafarer of a foreign nation, and Charles VIII of France was too much involved in Italian affairs. The prospect was disheartening. Nevertheless, Columbus, with the assistance of his friends, concluded to make another attempt in Spain. He proceeded to court again in 1491, taking with him his son Diego. The court being then in camp before Granada, the last Moorish stronghold, the time could not have been more inopportune. Another junta was called before Granada while the siege was going on, but the commission again reported unfavourably. This is not surprising, as Ferdinand of Aragon could not undertake schemes that would involve a great outlay, and divert his attention from the momentous task he was engaged in. Columbus always directed his proposals to the king and as yet the queen had taken no official notice of them, as she too was heart and soul in the enterprise destined to restore Spain wholly to Christian rule.

The junta before Granada took place towards the end of 1491, and its decision was such a blow to Columbus that he left the court and wandered away with his boy. Before leaving, however, he witnessed the fall of Granada, 2 January, 1492. His intention was to return to Cordova and then, perhaps, to go to France. On foot and reduced almost to beggary, he reached the Dominican convent of La Rábida probably in January, 1492. The prior was Father Juan Perez, the confessor of the queen, frequently confounded with Fray Antonio Marchena by historians of the nineteenth century, who also erroneously place the arrival of Columbus at La Rábida in the early part of his sojourn in Spain. Columbus begged the friar who acted as door-keeper to let his tired son rest at the convent over night. While he was pleading his cause the prior was standing near by and listening. Something struck him in the appearance of this man, with a foreign accent, who appeared to be superior to his actual condition. After providing for his immediate wants Father Perez took him to his cell, where Columbus told him all his aspirations and blighted hopes. The result was that Columbus and his son stayed at the convent as guests and Father Perez hurried to Santa Fe near Granada, for the purpose of inducing the queen to take a personal interest in the proposed undertaking of the Italian navigator.

Circumstances had changed with the fall of Granada, and the Dominican's appeal was favourably received by Isabella who, in turn, influenced her husband. Columbus was called to court at once, and 20,000 maravedis were assigned him out of the queen's private resources that he might appear in proper condition before the monarch. Some historians assert that Luis de Santangel decided the queen to espouse the cause of Columbus, but the credit seems rather to belong to the prior of La Rábida. The way had been well prepared by the other steadfast friends of Columbus, not improbably Cardinal Mendoza among others. At all events negotiations progressed so rapidly that on 17 April the first agreement with the Crown was signed, and on 30 April the second. Both show an unwise liberality on the part of the monarchs, who made the highest office in what was afterwards the West Indies hereditary in the family of Columbus. Preparations were immediately begun for the equipment of the expedition. The squadron with which Columbus set out on his first voyage consisted of three vessels--the Santa Maria, completely decked, which carried the flag of Columbus as admiral, the Pinta, and the Niña, both caravels, i.e. undecked, with cabins and forecastles. These three ships carried altogether 120 men. Two seamen of repute, Martín Alonso Pinzon and his brother Vicente Yanez Pinzon, well-to-do-residents of Palos commanded, the former the Pinta. the latter the Niña, and experienced pilots were placed on both ships. Before leaving, Columbus received the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, at the hands (it is stated) of Father Juan Perez, the officers and crews of the little squadron following his example. On 3 August, 1492, the people of Palos with heavy hearts saw them depart on an expedition regarded by many as foolhardy.

Las Casas claims to have used the journal of Columbus's first voyage, but he admits that he made an abridged copy of it. What and how much he left out, of course, is not known. But it is well to bear in mind that the journal, as published, is not the original in its entirety. The vessels touched at the Canaries, and then proceeded on the voyage. Conditions were most favourable. Hardly a wind ruffled the waters of the ocean. The dramatic incident of the mutiny, in which the discouragement of the crews is said to have culminated before land was discovered, is a pure invention. That there was dissatisfaction and grumbling at the failure to reach land seems to be certain, but no acts of insubordination are mentioned either by Columbus, his commentator Las Casas, or his son Fernando. Perhaps the most important event during the voyage was the observation, 17 September, by Columbus himself, of the declination of the magnetic needle, which Las Casas attributes to a motion of the polar star. The same author intimates that two distinct journals were kept by the admiral, "because he always represented [feigned] to the people that he was making little headway in order that the voyage should not seem long to them, so that he kept a record by two routes, the shorter being the fictitious one, and the longer the true one". He must therefore either have kept two log-books, or he must have made two different entries in the same book. At any rate Las Casas seems to have had at his command both sets of data, since he gives them almost from day to day. This precautionary measure indicates that Columbus feared insubordination and even revolt on the part of the crews, but there is no evidence that any mutiny really broke out. Finally, at ten o'clock, p.m., 11 October, Columbus himself described a light which indicated land and was so recognized by the crew of his vessel. It reappeared several times, and Columbus felt sure that the shores so eagerly expected were near. At 2 a.m. on 12 October the land was seen plainly by one of the Pinta's crew, and in the forenoon Columbus landed on what is now called Watling's Island in the Bahama group, West Indies. The discoverers named the island San Salvador. The Indians inhabiting it belonged to the widespread Arawak stock and are said to have called the island Guanahani. Immediately after landing Columbus took possession of the island for the Spanish sovereigns.

The results of the first voyage, aside from the discovery of what the admiral regarded as being approaches to India and China, may be summed up as follows: partial recognition of the Bahamas; the discovery and exploration of a part of Cuba, and the establishment of a Spanish settlement on the coast of what is now the Island of Haiti or Santo Domingo. Cuba Columbus named Juana, and Santo Domingo, Hispaniola.

It was on the northern coast of the large island of Santo Domingo that Columbus met with the only serious mishap of the first voyage. Having established the nucleus of the first permanent Spanish settlement in the Indies, he left about three score men to hold it. The vicinity was comparatively well peopled by natives, Arawaks like those of the Bahamas, but slightly more advanced in culture. A few days previous to the foundation Martin Alonso Pinzon disappeared with the caravel Pinta which he commanded and only rejoined the admiral on 6 January, 1493, an act, to say the least, of disobedience, if not of treachery. The first settlement was officially established on Christmas Day, 1492, and hence christened "La Navidad". On the same day the admiral's ship ran aground. It was a total loss, and Columbus was reduced for the time being to the Niña, as the Pinta had temporarily deserted. Happily the natives were friendly. After ensuring, as well as he might, the safety of the little colony by the establishment of friendly relations with the Indians, Columbus left for Spain, where, after weathering a frightful storm during which he was again separated from the Pinta, he arrived at Palos, 15 March, 1493.

From the journal mentioned we also gather (what is not stated in the letters of Columbus) that while on the northern shores of Santo Domingo (Hispaniola) the admiral "learned that behind the Island Juana [Cuba] towards the South, there is another large island in which there is much more gold. They call that island Yamaye. . . . And that the island Española or the other island Yamaye was near the mainland, ten days distant by canoe, which might be sixty or seventy leagues, and that there the people were clothed [dressed]". Yamaye is Jamaica, and the mainland alluded to as sixty or seventy leagues distant to the south (by south the west is meant), or 150 to 175 English miles (the league, at that time, being counted at four millas of 3000 Spanish feet), was either Yucatan or Honduras. Hence the admiral brought the news of the existence of the American continent to Europe as early as 1493. That he believed the continent to be Eastern Asia does not diminish the importance of his information.

Columbus had been careful to load his ship with all manner of products of the newly discovered countries and he also took some of the natives. Whether, among the samples of the vegetable kingdom, tobacco was included, is not yet satisfactorily ascertained. Nor is it certain that, when upon his return he presented himself to the monarchs at Barcelona, an imposing public demonstration took place in his honour. That he was received with due distinction at court and that he displayed the proofs of his discovery can not be doubted. The best evidence of the high appreciation of the King and Queen of Spain is the fact, that the prerogatives granted to him were confirmed, and everything possible was done to enable him to continue his explorations. The fact that Columbus had found a country that appeared to be rich in precious metals was of the utmost importance. Spain was poor, having been robbed, ages before, of its metallic wealth by the Romans. As gold was needed the discovery of a new source of that precious metal made a strong impression on the people of Spain, and a rush to the new regions was inevitable.

Columbus started on his second voyage to the Indies from Cadiz, 25 September, 1493, with three large vessels and thirteen caravels, carrying in all about 1500 men. On his first trip, he had heard about other, smaller islands lying some distance south of Hispaniola, and said to be inhabited by ferocious tribes who had the advantage over the Arawaks of being intrepid seafarers, and who made constant war upon the inhabitants of the Greater Antilles and the Bahamas, carrying off women and children into captivity. They were believed to practice cannibalism. These were the Caribs and the reports about them were true, outside of some exaggerations and fables like the story of the Amazons. Previous to the arrival of Columbus the Caribs had driven the Arawaks steadily north, depopulated some of the smaller islands, and were sorely pressing the people of Hispaniola, parts of Cuba, Porto Rico, and even Jamaica. Columbus wished to learn more about these people. The helpless condition of the Arawaks made him eager to protect them against their enemies. The first land sighted, 3 November, was the island now known as Dominica, and almost at the same time that of Marie Galante was discovered. Geographically the second voyage resulted in the discovery of the Caribbean Islands (including the French Antilles), Jamaica, and minor groups. Columbus having obtained conclusive evidence of the ferocious customs of the Caribs, regarded them as dangerous to the settlements he proposed to make among the Arawaks and as obstacles to the Christianization and civilization of these Indians. The latter he intended to make use of as labourers, as he soon perceived that for some time to come European settlers would be too few in numbers and too new to the climate to take advantage of the resources of the island. The Caribs he purposed to convert eventually, but for the time being they must be considered as enemies, and according to the customs of the age, their captors had the right to reduce them to slavery. The Arawaks were to be treated in a conciliatory manner, as long as they did not show open hostility. Before long, however, there was a change in these relations.

After a rapid survey of Jamaica, Columbus hastened to the northern coast of Haiti, where he had planted the colony of La Navidad. To his surprise the little fort had disappeared. There were to be seen only smouldering ruins and some corpses which were identified as Spanish. The natives, previously so friendly, were shy, and upon being questioned were either mute or contradictory in their replies. It was finally ascertained that another tribe, living farther inland and hostile to those on the coast, had fallen upon the fort, killed most of the inmates, and burnt most of the buildings. Those who escaped had perished in their flight. But it also transpired that the coast people themselves had taken part in the massacre. Columbus, while outwardly on good terms with them, was on his guard and, in consequence of the aversion of his people to a site where only disaster had befallen them, moved some distance farther east and established on the coast the larger settlement of Isabella. This stood ten leagues to the east of Cape Monte Cristo, where the ruins are still to be seen.

The existence of gold on Haiti having been amply demonstrated on the first voyage, Columbus inaugurated a diligent search for places where it might be found. The gold trinkets worn by the Indians were washings or placeres, but mention is also made, on the first voyage, of quartz rock containing the precious metal. But it is likely that the yellow mineral was iron pyrites, probably gold-bearing but, in the backward state of metallurgy, worthless at the time. Soon after the settlement was made at Isabella the colonists began to complain that the mineral wealth of the newly discovered lands had been vastly exaggerated and one, who accompanied the expedition as expert in metallurgy, claimed that the larger nuggets held by the natives had been accumulated in the course of a long period of time. This very sensible supposition was unjustly criticized by Irving, for since Irving's time it has been clearly proved that pieces of metal of unusual size and shape were often kept for generations by the Indians as fetishes.

A more important factor which disturbed the Spanish was the unhealthiness of the climate. The settlers had to go through the slow and often fatal process of acclimatization. Columbus himself suffered considerably from ill-health. Again, the island was not well provided with food suitable for the newcomers. The population, notwithstanding the exaggerations of Las Casas and others, was sparse. Isabella with its fifteen hundred Spanish immigrants was certainly the most populous settlement. At first there was no clash with the natives, but parties sent by Columbus into the interior came in contact with hostile tribes. For the protection of the colonists Columbus built in the interior a little fort called Santo Tomas. He also sent West Indian products and some Carib prisoners back to Spain in a vessel under the command of Antonio de Torres. Columbus suggested that the Caribs be sold as slaves in order that they might be instructed in the Christian Faith. This suggestion was not adopted by the Spanish monarchs, and the prisoners were treated as kindly in Spain as the friendly Arawaks who had been sent over.

The condition of affairs on Hispaniola (Haiti) was not promising. At Isabella and on the coast there was grumbling against the admiral, in which the Benedictine Father Buil (Boil) and the other priests joined, or which, at least, they did not discourage. In the interior there was trouble with the natives. The commander at Santo Tomas, Pedro Margarite, is usually accused of cruelty to the Indians, but Columbus himself in his Memorial of 30 January, 1494, commends the conduct of that officer. However, he had to send him reinforcements, which were commanded by Alonzo de Ojeda.

Anxiously following up his theory that the newly discovered islands were but outlying posts of Eastern Asia and that further explorations would soon lead him to the coast of China or to the Moluccas, Columbus, notwithstanding the precarious condition of the colony, left it in charge of his brother Diego and four counsellors (one of whom was Father Buil), and with three vessels set sail towards Cuba. During his absence of five months he explored parts of Cuba, discovered the Isle of Pines and several groups of smaller islands, and made the circuit of Jamaica, landing there almost every day. When he returned to Isabella (29 September, 1494), he was dangerously ill and in a stupor. Meanwhile his brother Bartholomew had arrived from Spain with a small squadron and supplies. He proved a welcome auxiliary to the weak Diego, but could not prevent serious trouble. Margarite, angered by interference with his administration in the interior, returned to the coast, and there was joined by Father Buil and other malcontents. They seized the three caravels that had arrived under the command of Bartholomew Columbus, and set sail in them for Spain to lay before the Government what they considered their grievances against Columbus and his administration.

That there was cause for complaint there seems to be no doubt, but it is almost impossible now to determine who was most at fault, Columbus or his accusers. He was certainly not as able an administrator as he was a navigator. Still, taking into consideration the difficulties, the novelty of the conditions, and the class of men Columbus had to handle, and placing over against this what he had already achieved on Haiti, there is not so much ground for criticism. The charges of cruelty against the natives are based upon rather suspicious authority, Las Casas being the principal source. There were errors and misdeeds on both sides, which, however, might not have brought about a crisis had not disappointment angered the settlers, who had based their expectations on the glowing reports of Columbus himself, and disposed them to attribute all their troubles to their opponents.

Before the return of Columbus to Isabella, Ojeda had repulsed an attempt of the natives to surprise Santo Tomas. Thereupon the Indians of various tribes of the interior now formed a confederation and threatened Isabella. Columbus, however, on his return, with the aid of firearms, sixteen horses, and about twenty blood-hounds easily broke up the Indian league. Ojeda captured the leader, and the policy of kindness hitherto pursued towards the natives was replaced by repression and chastisement. According to the customs of the times the prisoners of war were regarded as rebels, reduced to slavery, and five hundred of these were sent to Spain to be sold. It is certain that the condition of the Indians became much worse thereafter, that they were forced into unaccustomed labours, and that their numbers began to diminish rapidly. That these harsh measures were authorized by Columbus there can be no doubt.

While the Spanish monarchs in their dispatches to Columbus continued to show the same confidence and friendliness they could not help hearing the accusations made against him by Father Buil, Pedro Margarite, and the other malcontents, upon their return to Spain. It was clear that there were two factions among the Spaniards in Haiti, one headed by the admiral, the other composed of perhaps a majority of the settlers including ecclesiastics. Still the monarchs enjoined the colonists by letter to obey Columbus in everything and confirmed his authority and privileges. The incriminations, however, continued, and charges were made of nepotism and spoliation if royal revenue. There was probably some foundation for these charges, though also much wilful misrepresentation. Unable to ascertain the true condition of affairs, the sovereigns finally decided to send to the Indies a special commissioner to investigate and report. Their choice fell upon Juan de Aguado who had gone with Columbus on his first voyage and with whom he had always been on friendly terms. Aguado arrived at Isabella in October, 1495, while Columbus was absent on a journey of exploration across the island. No clash appears to have occurred between Aguado and Bartholomew Columbus, who was in charge of the colony during his brother's absence, much less with the admiral himself upon the latter's return. Soon after, reports of important gold discoveries came from a remote quarter of the island accompanied by specimens. The arrival of Aguado convinced Columbus of the necessity for his appearance in Spain and that new discoveries of gold would strengthen his position there. So he fitted out two ships, one for himself and one for Aguado, placing in them two hundred dissatisfied colonists, a captive Indian chief (who died on the voyage), and thirty Indian prisoners, and set sail for Spain on 10 March, 1496, leaving his brother Bartholomew at Isabella as temporary governor. As intercourse between Spain and the Indies was now carried on at almost regular intervals. Bartholomew was in communication with the mother country and was at least tacitly recognized as his brother's substitute in the government of the Indies. Columbus reached Cadiz 11 June, 1496.

The story of his landing is quite dramatic. He is reported to have gone ashore, clothed in the Franciscan garb, and to have manifested a dejection which was wholly uncalled for. His health, it is true, was greatly impaired, and his companions bore the marks of great physical suffering. The impression created by their appearance was of course not favourable and tended to confirm the reports of the opponents of Columbus about the nature of the new country. This, as well as the disappointing results of the search for precious metals, did not fail to have its influence. The monarchs saw that the first enthusiastic reports had been exaggerated, and that the enterprise while possibly lucrative in the end, would entail large expenditures for some time to come. Bishop Fonseca, who was at the head of colonial affairs, urged that great caution should be exercised. What was imputed to Bishop Fonseca as jealousy was only the sincere desire of an honest functionary to guard the interests of the Crown without blocking the way of an enthusiastic but somewhat visionary genius who had been unsuccessful as an administrator. Later expressions (1505) of Columbus indicate that the personal relations to Fonseca were at the time far from unfriendly. But the fact that Columbus had proposed the enslaving of American natives and actually sent a number of them over to Spain had alienated the sympathy of the queen to a certain degree, and thus weakened his position at court.

Nevertheless, it was not difficult for Columbus to organize a third expedition. Columbus started on his third voyage from Seville with six vessels on 30 May, 1498. He directed his course more southward than before, owing to reports of a great land lying west and south of the Antilles and his belief that it was the continent of Asia. He touched at the Island of Madeira, and later at Gomera, one of the Canary Islands, whence he sent to Haiti three vessels. Sailing southward, he went to the Cape Verde Islands and, turning thence almost due west, arrived on 31 July 1498, in sight of what is now the Island of Trinidad which was so named by him. Opposite, on the other side of a turbulent channel, lay the lowlands of north-eastern South America. Alarmed by the turmoil caused by the meeting of the waters of the Orinoco (which empties through several channels into the Atlantic opposite Trinidad) with the Guiana current, Columbus kept close to the southern shore of Trinidad as far as its south-western extremity, where he found the water still more turbulent. He therefore gave that place the name of Boca del Drago, or Dragon's Mouth. Before venturing into the seething waters Columbus crossed over to the mainland and cast anchor. He was under the impression that this was an island, but a vast stream of fresh water gave evidence of a continent. Columbus landed, he and his crew being thus the first Europeans to set foot on South American soil. The natives were friendly and gladly exchanged pearls for European trinkets. The discovery of pearls in American waters was important and very welcome.

A few days later, the admiral, setting sail again, was borne by the currents safely to the Island of Margarita, where he found the natives fishing for pearls, of which he obtained three bags by barter.

Some of the letters of Columbus concerning his third voyage are written in a tone of despondency. Owing to his physical condition, he viewed things with a discontent far from justifiable. And, as already said, his views of the geographical situation were somewhat fanciful. The great outpour opposite Trinidad he justly attributed to the emptying of a mighty river coming from the west, a river, so large that only a continent could afford its space. In this he was right, but in his eyes that continent was Asia, and the sources of that river must be on the highest point of the globe. He was confirmed in this idea by his belief that Trinidad was nearer the Equator than it actually is and that near the Equator the highest land on earth should be found. He thought also that the sources of the Orinoco lay in the Earthly Paradise and that the great river was one of the four streams that according to Scripture flowed from the Garden of Eden. He had no accurate knowledge of the form of the earth, and conjectured that it was pear-shaped.

On 15 August, fearing a lack of supplies, and suffering severely from what his biographers call gout and from impaired eyesight, he left his new discoveries and steered for Haiti. On 19 August he sighted that island some distance west of where the present capital of the Republic of Santo Domingo now stands. During his absence his brother Bartholomew had abandoned Isabella and established his head-quarters at Santo Domingo so called after his father Domenico. During the absence of Columbus events on Haiti had been far from satisfactory. His brother Bartholomew, who was then known as the adelantado, had to contend with several Indian outbreaks, which he subdued partly by force, partly by wise temporizing. These outbreaks were, at least in part, due to a change in the class of settlers by whom the colony was reinforced. The results of the first settlement far from justified the buoyant hopes based on the exaggerated reports of the first voyage, and the pendulum of public opinion swung back to the opposite extreme. The clamour of opposition to Columbus in the colonies and the discouraging reports greatly increased in Spain the disappointment with the new territorial acquisitions. That the climate was not healthful seemed proved by the appearance of Columbus and his companions on his return from the second voyage. Hence no one was willing to go to the newly discovered country, and convicts, suspects, and doubtful characters in general who were glad to escape the regulations of justice were the only reinforcements that could be obtained for the colony on Hispaniola. As a result there were conflicts with the aborigines, sedition in the colony, and finally open rebellion against the authority of the adelantado and his brother Diego. Columbus and his brothers were Italians, and this fact told against them among the malcontents and lower officials, but that it influenced the monarchs and the court authorities is a gratuitous charge.

As long as they had not a common leader Bartholomew had little to fear from the malcontents, who separated from the rest of the colony, and formed a settlement apart. They abused the Indians, thus causing almost uninterrupted trouble. However, they soon found a leader in the person of one Roldan, to whom the admiral had entrusted a prominent office in the colony. There must have been some cause for complaint against the government of Bartholomew and Diego, else Roldan could not have so increased the number of his followers as to make himself formidable to the brothers, undermining their authority at their own head-quarters and even among the garrison of Santo Domingo. Bartholomew was forced to compromise on unfavourable terms. So, when the admiral arrived from Spain he found the Spanish settlers on Haiti divided into two camps, the stronger of which, headed by Roldan, was hostile to his authority. That Roldan was an utterly unprincipled man, but energetic and above all, shrewd and artful, appears from the following incident. Soon after the arrival of Columbus the three caravels he had sent from Gomera with stores and ammunition struck the Haitian coast where Roldan had established himself. The latter represented to the commanders of the vessels that he was there by Columbus's authority and easily obtained from them military stores as well as reinforcements in men. On their arrival shortly afterward at Santo Domingo the caravels were sent back to Spain by Columbus. Alarmed at the condition of affairs and his own importance, he informed the monarchs of his critical situation and asked for immediate help. Then he entered into negotiations with Roldan. The latter not only held full control in the settlement which he commanded, but had the sympathy of most of the military garrisons that Columbus and his brothers relied upon as well as the majority of the colonists. How Columbus and his brother could have made themselves so unpopular is explained in various ways. There was certainly much unjustifiable ill will against them, but there was also legitimate cause for discontent, which was adroitly exploited by Roldan and his followers.

Seeing himself almost powerless against his opponents on the island, the admiral stooped to a compromise. Roldan finally imposed his own conditions. He was reinstated in his office and all offenders were pardoned; and a number of them returned to Santo Domingo. Columbus also freed many of the Indian tribes from tribute, but in order still further to appease the former mutineers, he instituted the system of repartimientos, by which not only grants of land were made to the whites, but the Indians holding these lands or living on them were made perpetual serfs to the new owners, and full jurisdiction over life and property of these Indians became vested in the white settlers. This measure had the most disastrous effect on the aborigines, and Columbus has been severely blamed for it, but he was then in such straits that he had to go to any extreme to pacify his opponents until assistance could reach him from Spain. By the middle of the year 1500 peace apparently reigned again in the colony, though largely at the expense of the prestige and authority of Columbus.

Meanwhile reports and accusations had reached the court of Spain from both parties in Haiti. It became constantly more evident that Columbus was no longer master of the situation in the Indies, and that some steps were necessary to save the situation. It might be said that the Court had merely to support Columbus whether right or wrong. But the West Indian colony had grown, and its settlers had their connections and supporters in Spain, who claimed some attention and prudent consideration. The clergy who were familiar with the circumstances through personal experience for the most part disapproved of the management of affairs by Columbus and his brothers. Queen Isabella's irritation at the sending of Indian captives for sale as slaves had by this time been allayed by a reminder of the custom then in vogue of enslaving captive rebels or prisoners of war addicted to specially inhuman customs, as was the case with the Caribs. Anxious to be just, the monarchs decided upon sending to Haiti an officer to investigate and to punish all offenders. This visitador was invested with full power, and was to have the same authority as the monarchs themselves for the time being, superseding Columbus himself, though the latter was the Viceroy of the Indies. The visita was a mode of procedure employed by the Spanish monarchs for the adjustment of critical matters, chiefly in the colonies. The visitador was selected irrespective of rank or office, solely from the standpoint of fitness, and not infrequently his mission was kept secret from the viceroy or other high official whose conduct he was sent to investigate; there are indications that sometimes he had summary power over life and death. A visita was a much dreaded measure, and for very good reasons.

The investigation in the West Indies was not called a visita at the time, but such it was in fact. The visitador chosen was Francisco de Bobadilla, of whom both Las Casas and Oviedo (friends and admirers of Columbus) speak in favourable terms. His instructions were, as his office required, general and his faculties, of course, discretionary; there is no need of supposing secret orders inimical to Columbus to explain what afterwards happened. The admiral was directed, in a letter addressed to him and entrusted to Bobadilla, to turn over to the latter, at least temporarily, the forts and all public property on the island. No blame can be attached to the monarchs for this measure. After an experiment of five years the administrative capacity of Columbus had failed to prove satisfactory. Yet, the vice-regal power had been vested in him as an hereditary right. To continue adhering to that clause of the original contract was impracticable, since the colony refused to pay heed to Columbus and his orders. Hence the suspension of the viceregal authority of Columbus was indefinitely prolonged, so that the office was reduced to a mere title and finally fell into disuse. The curtailment of revenue resulting from it was comparatively small, as all the emoluments proceeding from his other titles and prerogatives were left untouched. The tale of his being reduced to indigence is a baseless fabrication.

A man suddenly clothed with unusual and discretionary faculties is liable to be led astray by unexpected circumstances and tempted to go to extremes. Bobadilla had a right to expect implicit obedience to royal orders on the part of all and, above all, from Columbus as the chief servant of the Crown. When on 24 August, 1500, Bobadilla landed at Santo Domingo and demanded of Diego Columbus compliance with the royal orders, the latter declined to obey until directed by the admiral who was then absent. Bobadilla, possibly predisposed against Columbus and his brothers by the reports of others and by the sight of the bodies of Spaniards dangling from gibbets in full view of the port, considered the refusal of Diego as an act of direct insubordination. The action of Diego was certainly unwise and gave colour to an assumption that Columbus and his brothers considered themselves masters of the country. This implied rebellion and furnished a pretext to Bobadilla for measures unjustifiably harsh. As visitador he had absolute authority to do as he thought best, especially against the rebels, of whom Columbus appeared in his eyes as the chief.

Within a few days after the landing of Bobadilla, Diego and Bartholomew Columbus were imprisoned and put in irons. The admiral himself, who returned with the greatest possible speed, shared their fate. The three brothers were separated and kept in close confinement, but they could hear from their cells the imprecations of the people against their rule. Bobadilla charged them with being rebellious subjects and seized their private property to pay their personal debts. He liberated prisoners, reduced or abolished imposts, in short did all he could to place the new order of things in favourable contrast to the previous management. No explanation was offered to Columbus for the harsh treatment to which he was subjected, for a visitador had only to render account to the king or according to his special orders. Early in October, 1500, the three brothers, still in fetters, were placed on board ship, and sent to Spain, arriving at Cadiz at the end of the month. Their treatment while aboard seems to have been considerate; Villejo, the commander, offered to remove the manacles from Columbus's hands and relieve him from the chains, an offer, however, which Columbus refused to accept. It seems, nevertheless, that he did not remain manacled, else he could not have written the long and piteous letter to the nurse of Prince Juan, recounting his misfortunes on the vessel. He dispatched this letter to the court at Granada before the reports of Bobadilla were sent.

The news of the arrival of Columbus as a prisoner was received with unfeigned indignation by the monarchs, who saw that their agent Bobadilla had abused the trust placed in him. The people also saw the injustice, and everything was done to relieve Columbus from his humiliating condition and assure him of the royal favour, that is, everything except to reinstate him as Governor of the Indies. This fact is mainly responsible for the accusation of duplicity and treachery which is made against King Ferdinand. Critics overlook the fact that in addition to the reasons already mentioned no new colonists could be obtained from Spain, if Columbus were to continue in office, and that the expedient of sending convicts to Haiti had failed disastrously. Moreover, the removal of Columbus was practically implied in the instructions and powers given to Bobadilla, and the conduct of the admiral during Aguado's mission left no room for doubt that he would submit to the second investigation. He would have done so, but Bobadilla, anxious to make a display and angered at the delay of Diego Columbus, exceeded the spirit of his instructions, expecting thereby to rise in royal as well as in popular favour.

In regard to the former he soon found out his mistake. His successor in the governorship of Haiti was soon appointed in the person of Nicolas de Ovando. Bobadilla was condemned to restore to Columbus the property he had sequestered, and was recalled. The largest fleet sent to the Indies up to that time sailed under Ovando on 13 February, 1502. It is not without significance that 2500 people, some of high rank, flocked to the vessels that were to transport the new governor to the Indies. This shows that with the change in the administration of the colony faith in its future was restored among the Spanish people. By this time the mental condition of Columbus had become greatly impaired. While at court for eighteen months vainly attempting to obtain the restoration to a position for which he was becoming more and more unfitted, he was planning new schemes. Convinced that his third voyage had brought him nearer to Asia, he proposed to the monarchs a project to recover the Holy Sepulchre by the western route, that would have led him across South America to the Pacific Ocean. He fancied that the large river he had discovered west of Trinidad flowed in a direction opposite to its real course, and thought that by following it he could reach the Red Sea and thence cross over to Jerusalem. So preoccupied was he with these ideas that he made arrangements for depositing part of his revenue with the bank of Genoa to be used in the reconquest of the Holy Land. This alone disposes of the allegations that Columbus was left without resources after his liberation from captivity. He was enabled to maintain a position at court corresponding to his exalted rank, and favours and privileges were bestowed on both of his sons. The project of testing the views of Columbus in regard to direct communication with Asia was seriously considered, and finally a fourth voyage of exploration at the expense of the Spanish Government was conceded to Columbus. That there were some misgivings in regard to his physical and mental condition is intimated by the fact that he was given as companions his brother Bartholomew, who had great influence with him, and his favourite son Fernando. Four vessels carrying, besides these three and a representative of the Crown to receive any treasure that might be found, about 150 men, set sail from San Lucar early in May, 1502. Columbus was enjoined not to stop at Haiti, a wise measure, for had the admiral landed there so soon after the arrival of Ovando, there would have been danger of new disturbances. Disobeying these instructions, Columbus attempted to enter the port of Santo Domingo, but was refused admission. He gave proof of his knowledge and experience as a mariner by warning Ovando of an approaching hurricane, but was not listened to. He himself sheltered his vessels at some distance from the harbour. The punishment for disregarding the friendly warning came swiftly; the large fleet which had brought Ovando over was, on sailing for Spain, overtaken by the tempest, and twenty ships were lost, with them Bobadillo, Roldan, and the gold destined for the Crown. The admiral's share of the gold obtained on Haiti, four thousand pieces directly sent to him by his representative on the island, was not lost, and on being delivered in Spain, was not confiscated. Hence it is difficult to see how Columbus could have been in need during the last years of his life.

The vessels of Columbus having suffered comparatively little from the tempest, he left the coast of Haiti in July, 1502, and was carried by wind and current to the coast of Honduras. From 30 July, 1502, to the end of the following April he coasted Central America beyond Colon to Cape Tiburon on the South American Continent. On his frequent landings he found traces of gold, heard reports of more civilized tribes of natives farther inland, and persistent statements about another ocean lying west and south of the land he was coasting, the latter being represented to him as a narrow strip dividing two vast seas. The mental condition of Columbus, coupled with his physical disabilities, prevented him from interpreting these important indications otherwise than as confirmations of his vague theories and fatal visions. Instead of sending an exploring party across the isthmus to satisfy himself of the truth of these reports, he accepted this testimony to the existence of a sea beyond, which he firmly believed to be the Indian Ocean, basing his confidence on a dream in which he had seen a strait he supposed to be the Strait of Malacca. As his crews were exasperated by the hardships and deceptions, his ships worn-eaten, and he himself emaciated, he turned back towards Haiti with what he thought to be the tidings of a near approach to the Asiatic continent. It had been a disastrous voyage; violent storms continually harassed the little squadron, two ships had been lost, and the treasure obtained far from compensated for the toil and the suffering endured. This was all the more exasperating when it became evident that a much richer reward could be obtained by penetrating inland, to which, however, Columbus would not or perhaps could not consent.

On 23 June, 1503, Columbus and his men, crowded on two almost sinking caravels, finally landed on the inhospitable coast of Jamaica. After dismantling his useless craft, and using the material for temporary shelter, he sent a boat to Haiti to ask for assistance and to dispatch thence to Spain a vessel with a pitiful letter giving a fantastic account of his sufferings which in itself gave evidence of an over-excited and disordered mind.

Ovando to whom Columbus's request for help was delivered at Jaragua (Haiti) cannot be acquitted of unjustifiable delay in sending assistance to the shipwrecked and forsaken admiral. There is no foundation for assuming that he acted under the orders or in accordance with the wishes of the sovereigns. Columbus had become useless, the colonists in Haiti would not tolerate his presence there. The only practical course was to take him back to Spain directly and remove him forever from the lands the discovery of which had made him immortal. In spite of his many sufferings, Columbus was not utterly helpless. His greatest trouble came from the mutinous spirit of his men who roamed about, plundering and maltreating the natives, who, in consequence, became hostile and refused to furnish supplies. An eclipse of the moon predicted by Columbus finally brought them to terms and thus prevented starvation. Ovando, though informed of the admiral's critical condition, did nothing for his relief except to permit Columbus's representative in Haiti to fit out a caravel with stores at the admiral's expense and send it to Jamaica; but even this tardy relief did not reach Columbus until June, 1504. He also permitted Mendez, who had been the chief messenger of Columbus to Haiti, to take passage for Spain, where he was to inform the sovereigns of the admiral's forlorn condition. There seems to be no excuse for the conduct of Ovando on this occasion. The relief expedition finally organized in Haiti, after a tedious and somewhat dangerous voyage, landed the admiral and his companions in Spain, 7 November, 1504.

A few weeks later Queen Isabella died, and grave difficulties beset the king. Columbus, now in very feeble health, remained at Seville until May, 1505, when he was at last able to attend court at Valladolid. His reception by the king was decorous, but without warmth. His importunities to be restored to his position as governor were put off with future promises of redress, but no immediate steps were taken. The story of the utter destitution in which the admiral is said to have died is one of the many legends with which his biography has been distorted. Columbus is said to have been buried at Valladolid. His son Diego is authority for the statement that his remains were buried in the Carthusian Convent of Las Cuevas, Seville, within three years after his death. According to the records of the convent, the remains were given up for transportation to Haiti in 1536, though other documents placed this event in 1537. It is conjectured, however, that the removal did not take place till 1541, when the Cathedral of Santo Domingo was completed, though there are no records of this entombment. When, in 1795, Haiti passed under French control, Spanish authorities removed the supposed remains of Columbus to Havana. On the occupation of Cuba by the United States they were once more removed to Seville (1898).

Columbus was unquestionably a man of genius. He was a bold, skilful navigator, better acquainted with the principles of cosmography and astronomy than the average skipper of his time, a man of original ideas, fertile in his plans, and persistent in carrying them into execution. The impression he made on those with whom he came in contact even in the days of his poverty, such as Fray Juan Perez, the treasurer Luis de Santangel, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, and Queen Isabella herself, shows that he had great powers of persuasion and was possessed of personal magnetism. His success in overcoming the obstacles to his expeditions and surmounting the difficulties of his voyages exhibit him as a man of unusual resources and of unflinching determination.

Columbus was also of a deeply religious nature. Whatever influence scientific theories and the ambition for fame and wealth may have had over him, in advocating his enterprise he never failed to insist on the conversion of the pagan peoples that he would discover as one of the primary objects of his undertaking. Even when clouds had settled over his career, after his return as a prisoner from the lands he had discovered, he was ready to devote all his possessions and the remaining years of his life to set sail again for the purpose of rescuing Christ's Sepulchre from the hands of the infidel.

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COLUMBUS FAMILY

Other members of the Columbus family also acquired fame:

Diego. Diego, the first son of Christopher and heir to his titles and prerogatives, was born at Lisbon, 1476, and died at Montalvan, near Toledo, 23 February, 1526. He was made a page to Queen Isabella in 1492, and remained at court until 1508. Having obtained confirmation of the privileges originally conceded to his father (the title of viceroy of the newly discovered countries excepted) he went to Santo Domingo in 1509 as Admiral of the Indies and Governor of Hispaniola. The authority of Diego Velazquez as governor, however, had become too firmly established, and Diego was met by open and secret opposition, especially from the royal Audiencia. Visiting Spain in 1520 he was favourably received and new honours bestowed upon him. However, in 1523, he had to return again to Spain to answer charges against him. The remainder of his life was taken up by the suit of the heirs of Columbus against the royal treasury, a memorable legal contest only terminated in 1564. Diego seems to have been a man of no extraordinary attainments, but of considerable tenacity of character.

Ferdinand. Ferdinand, better known as Fernando Colon, second son of Christopher, by Doña Beatriz Enriquez, a lady of a noble family of Cordova in Spain, was born at Cordova, 15 August, 1488; died at Seville, 12 July 1539. As he was naturally far more gifted than his half-brother Diego, he was a favourite with his father, whom he accompanied on the last voyage. As early as 1498 Queen Isabella had made him one of her pages and Columbus in his will (1505) left him an ample income, which was subsequently increased by royal grants. Fernando had decided literary tastes and wrote well in Spanish. While it is stated that he wrote a history of the West Indies, there are now extant only two works by him: "Descripción y cosmografía de España", a detailed geographical itinerary begun in 1517, published at Madrid in the "Boletin de la Real Sociedad geográfica" (1906-07); and the life of the admiral, his father, written about 1534, the Spanish original of which has been lost. It was published in an Italian translation by Ulloa in 1571 as "Vita dell' ammiraglio", and re-translated into Spanish by Barcia. "Historiadores primitivos de Indias" (Madrid, 1749). As might be expected this biography is sometimes partial, though Fernando often sides with the Spanish monarchs against his father. Of the highest value is the report by Fray Roman Pane on the customs of the Haitian Indians which is incorporated into the text. (See ARAWAKS.) Fernando left to the cathedral chapter of Seville a library of 20,000 volumes, a part of which still exists and is known as the Biblioteca Columbina.

Bartholomew. Bartholomew, elder brother of Christopher, born possibly in 1445 at Genoa; died at Santo Domingo, May, 1515. Like Christopher he became a seafarer at an early age. After his attempts to interest the Kings of France and England in his brother's projects, his life was bound up with that of his brother. It was during his time that bloodhounds were introduced into the West Indies. He was a man of great energy and some military talent, and during Christopher's last voyage took the leadership at critical moments. After 1506 he probably went to Rome and in 1509 back to the West Indies with his nephew Diego.

Diego. Diego, younger brother of Christopher and his companion on the second voyage, born probably at Genoa; died at Santo Domingo after 1509. After his release from chains in Spain (1500) he became a priest and returned to the West Indies in 1509.

The tract of CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, De prima in mari Indico lustratione, was published with the Bellum Christianorum principum of ROBERT ABBOT OF SAINT-REMI (Basle, 1533).--Codice diplomatico-Colombo-Americano, ossia Raccolia di documenti spettanti a Cr. Col., etc. (Genoa, 1823); ANON., Cr. Col. aiutato dei minorite nella scoperta del nuovo mondo (Genoa, 1846); SANGUINETTI, Vita di Colombo (Genoa, 1846); BOSSI, Vita di Cr. Col. (Milan, 1818); SPOTORNO, Della origine e della patria di Cr. Col. (Geonoa, 1819); NAVARRETE, Coleccion de los viajes y descubrimientas. . .desde fines del siglo XV (Madrid, 1825), I, II; AVEZAC-MACAYA, Annee veritable de la naissance de Chr. Col. (Paris, 1873); ROSELLY DE LORGNES, Vie et voyages de Chr. Col. (Paris, 1804), from which was compiled by BARRY, Life of Chr. Col. (New York, 1869); COLUMBUS, FERDINAND, French tr. by MULLER, Hist. de la vie et des decouvertes de Chr. Col. (Paris, s.d.); MAJOR (tr.), Select Letters of Chr. Col. (London, 1847 and 1870); HARRISSE, Fernando Colon historiador de du padre (Seville, 1871); VIGNAUD, La maison d'Alba et les archives colombiennes (Paris, 1901); l'HAGON, La Patria dr Colon segun los documentos de las ordenes militares (Madrid, 1892); UZIELLO in Congresso geografico italiano; Atti for April, 1901, Tascanelli, Colombo e Vespucci (Milan, 1902); WINSOR, Christopher Columbus (Boston, 1891); ADAMS, Christopher Columbus, in Makers of America (New York, 1892); DURO, Colon y la Historia Postuma (Madrid, 1885); THACHER, Christopher Columbus: His Life, His Work, His Remains (3 vols., New York, 1903-1904); IRVING, Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (3 vols., New York, 1868); PETER MARTYR, Dr orbe nova (Alcala, 1530); LAS CASAS, Historia de las Indias in Documentas para la historia de Espana; OVIEDO, Hist. general (Madrid, 1850). The last three authors had personal intercourse with Columbus, and their works are the chief source of information concerning him. CLARKE, Christopher Columbus in The Am. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1892); SHEA, Columbus, This Century's Estimate of His Life and Work (ibid.); U.S. CATH. HIST. SOC., The Cosmographier Introductio of Martin Waldseemuller (New York, 1908).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Diocese of Columbus

The Diocese of Columbus comprises that part of the State of Ohio, south of 40§41', lying between the Ohio River on the east and the Scioto River on the west, and also the Counties of Delaware, Franklin, and Morrow, twenty-nine counties of the eighty-eight into which the State of Ohio is divided; it contains 13,685 square miles. This portion of the State belonged originally to the Diocese of Cincinnati, and was recommended to Rome for erection as a see by the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council, of Baltimore, held in 1866. It was not until 3 March, 1868, that the official documents were issued erecting the diocese and naming as its first bishop Sylvester Horton Rosecrans who had been consecrated Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati and Titular Bishop of Pompeiopolis, 25 March, 1862. The portion of Ohio assigned to this diocese was in 1868 to a large extent but sparsely populated; no railroad had as yet penetrated some of the counties, and the bishop was forced to make many of the journeys on his visitations by stage, wagon, or steamboat. The Dominican Fathers were the earliest missionaries in Ohio, locating at St. Joseph's, Perry County, in the early part of the nineteenth century, and from their number was chosen the first Bishop of Cincinnati, Edward Fenwick. The first place of Catholic worship in Ohio was at St. Joseph's, Perry County. This chapel was built of logs and was blessed 6 December, 1818, by Rev. Edward Fenwick and his nephew, Rev. N.D. Young, both natives of Maryland, and receiving their jurisdiction from Bishop Flaget, who was then the only bishop between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi. The congregation consisted of ten families. An humble convent was built nearby, and its inmates were one American, N.D. Young, one Irishman, Thos. Martin, and one Belgian, Vincent De Rymacher. The second chapel erected in Ohio was also in this diocese, blessed in 1822, near what is now Danville. Knox County, then known as Sapp's Settlement, a colony from near Cumberland, Maryland, many of its members direct descendants of the colonists of Lord Baltimore. This chapel was built of logs and was blessed by Dominican Fathers and the humble congregation ministered to by them. Within a few miles of this second Catholic settlement in Ohio is the college town of Gambier, seat of Kenyon College and the Episcopalian Seminary of the Diocese of Ohio, over which in 1868 presided, before his conversion, Dr. James Kent Stone, afterwards Father Fidelis of the Congregation of St. Paul of the Cross. From its walls have gone forth many illustrious men who in after-life turned their eyes to the Church, among them Bishop Rosecrans and his brother, General Rosecrans, Henry Richards, father of Rev. James Havens Richards, S.A., and William Richards.

In its early days the diocese was largely an agricultural district, the first settlers from Pennsylvania and Maryland being tillers of the soil. Later came the emigrants from Ireland and Germany, who were followed by priests of their native lands. At the present time mining and manufacturing have so far advanced as to predominate and control. Immigration has also added to the variety of races among the Catholic population, notably Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Lithuanians, and Slavs may be found among the mining populations of the eastern and southern parts of the diocese; while Belgians are numerous among the workmen employed in the manufacture of glass, an industry that has risen of late years to prominence in Ohio, owing to the discovery of natural gas, which is an important feature in this business. The native-born descendants of the pioneer Catholics have taken a notable place in the walks of business and professional life, especially in the larger centres of population. The bishop and a large number of the clergy are natives of the State. All this has worked a decided change in the attitude of non-Catholics towards the Church and their Catholic fellow citizens.

Sylvester Horton Rosecrans, the first bishop, died 21 October, 1878. He was succeeded by John Ambrose Watterson, who was consecrated 8 August, 1880, and died 17 April, 1890. The next bishop was Henry Moeller, consecrated 25 August, 1900, promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Areopolis and made Coadjutor to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, 27 April, 1903. The fourth bishop, James Joseph Hartley, was consecrated 25 February, 1904.

There are 142 priests--105 secular and 37 regular--in the diocese, with 34 brothers and 450 sisters. The total population of the diocese is about 1,000,000; of this number 80,000 are Catholics. The parishes number 75, with 45 parochial schools and 9361 pupils, 4520 boys and 4841 girls. There are two orphan asylums, with 460 orphans; a Convent of the Good Shepherd with 207 inmates; four hospitals, treating 4000 patients annually; a preparatory seminary, with 22 students; a theological seminary, "The Pontifical College Josephinum of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith", with 161 students; a college, with 100 students; and three academies, with 430 pupils.

The Diocese of Columbus has given to the Church two bishops, Fitzgerald of Little Rock and Gallagher of Galveston; while the names of Henni, Archbishop of Milwaukee, Lamy, Archbishop of Santa Fé, De Goesbriand, Bishop of Burlington, Vermont, may be found on the baptismal registers of the early mission churches of the diocese. The State and nation also have received many a notable service, both in war and peace, from sons of the diocese. General Philip H. Sheridan was in his boyhood a resident of Somerset, Perry Co., the cradle of Catholicity in Ohio. General W. S. Rosecrans, brother of the first bishop of the diocese, both converts, General Don Carlos Buell, Generals Hugh and Charles Ewing of the Ewing family of Lancaster; Frank Hunt, Constitutional lawyer, Representative in Congress, and free trade advocate, J. A. MacGahan, Bulgaria's liberator, whose remains were brought by the United States Government from Constantinople to Perry County, are a few of the names on the diocesan roll of honour.

HOWE, Historical Collections of Ohio (cincinnati, Ohio, 1900); American Catholic Historical Researches (Philadelphia, July, 1896); files of Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), and Catholic Columbian (Columbus); U.S. Catholic Magazine (Baltimore, January, 1847), The Catholic Church in Ohio.

L.W. MULHANE

Column

In architecture a round pillar, a cylindrical solid body, or a many-sided prism, the body of which is sometimes reeded or fluted, but practically cylindrical in shape, and which supports another body in a vertical direction. A column has, as its most essential portion, a long solid body, called the shaft, set vertically on a stylobate, or on a congeries of mouldings which forms its base, the shaft being surmounted by a more or less bulky mass, which forms its capital. Columns are distinguished by the names of the styles of architecture to which they belong; thus there are Hindu, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and Gothic columns. In classic architecture they are further distinguished by the name of the order to which they belong, as Doric, Ionic, Composite, or Tuscan columns. They may also be characterized by some pecularity of position, of construction, of form, or of ornament, as attached, twisted, cabled, etc. Columns are either insulated or attached. They are said to be attached or engaged when they form part of a wall, projecting one-half or more, but not the whole of their substance. Cabled or rudented columns are such as have their flutings filled with cables or astragals to about the third of the height. Carolitic columns have their shafts foliated. In the earliest columnar architecture, that of the Egyptians, and in the Greek Doric, there were no bases. Capitals, however, are universal, but are mainly decorative in character. In Grecian and Roman architecture the proportions are settled, and vary according to the order. The term is sometimes applied to the pillars or piers in Norman and Gothic architecture. In modern usage the term is applied to supports of iron or wood.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Comacchio

(COMACLENSIS)

Diocese; suffragan of Ravenna. Comacchio is a town in the province of Ferrara in the Romagna, Italy, situated on islands near the mouths of the Po, and connected with the sea by a canal built by Cardinal Palotta. The ancient name of the town was Cymaclum. The first known Bishop of Comacchio was Pacatianus, present in 503 at a synod held in Rome under Pope Symmachus. St. Gregory the Great reckons the see among the suffragans of Ravenna. In 708 a certain Vincentius is mentioned as Bishop of Comacchio. In the seventh century Gregory, the youthful son of Isaac, Exarch of Ravenna, died at Comacchio in a monastery dedicated to St. Maurus, as is recorded in a Greek inscription. During the fifteenth century the town was held by the Venetians, but was retaken in 1509 by Alfonso II, Duke of Ferrara, and fortified by him. At the death of Alfonso in 1597, Comacchio, with the rest of the Duchy of Ferrara passed under the control of the Holy See. One of its bishops, Alfonso Pandolfo (1631), was a polished writer and poet, and established the Accademia dei Fluttuanti. In the vicinity of Comacchio is the ancient shrine of Santa Maria in Aula Regia, approached by a long portico of 142 arches, built in 1647 by the papal legate, Cardinal Giovanni Stefano Dongo. In 1708 Emperor Joseph I, on the pretence of having an ancient claim on the city seized Comacchio, which was, however, restored in 1724. In 1796 the town was occupied by the French. The famous Benedictine Abbey of Pomposa is in the Diocese of Comacchio. The diocese has a population of 40,630, with 114 parishes, 24 churches and oratories, 26 secular and 6 regular priests, 1 religious house of men, and 1 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), II, 579; CORRADINUS, Relatio jurium sedis apost. in civit. Comaclensem (ROME, 1741); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl. (Paris, 1894-99), s. v.; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Comana

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to ancient geographers, Comana was situated in Cappadocia (Cataonia). Eustathius (Comment. ad Dionys., 694) surnames it Chryse, "Golden". Another surname in epigraphy is Hieropolis, owing to a famous temple of the Syrian goddess Enyo or Ma. Strabo and Caesar visited it; the former (XI, 521; XII, 535, 537) enters into long details about its position on the Sarus (Seihoun), the temple and its hieroduli. St. Basiliscus was put to death at Comana and was buried there; according to Palladius, the historian of St. Chrysostom, he was bishop of the city, but this is very doubtful. Its bishop, Elpidius, was present at the Council of Nicaea, in 325. Leontius, a Semi-Arian, held the see in the time of the Emperor Jovian. Heraclius appeared at Chalcedon in 451: Comana was then a suffragan of Militene, the metropolis of Armenia Secunda; since then it figures as such in most of the "Notitiae episcopatuum" to the twelfth century. Two other bishops are known: Hormizes, or Mormisdas, about 458 (letter to the Emperor Leo; see also Photius, Biblioth., Cod. 51) and Theodorus at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in 553. The ruins of Comana are visible ten miles north-west of Guksun (Cocussus), in the vilayet of Adana (Lequien, I, 447; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, passim). Another Comana, suffragan of Neocaesarea, was situated in Pontus Polemiacus; it had also a temple of Ma and was surnamed Hierocaesarea. It was captured by Sulla, 83 B.C. Six bishops are mentioned by Lequien (I, 517); the first is St. Alexander the Charcoal-Seller, consecrated by St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker. This town is to-day Gomenek, or Gomanak, a village south-west of Neocaesarea (Niksar), in the vilayet of Sivas. Lequien (I, 1009) gives another Comana in Pamphylia Prima, suffragan of Side; the true name is Conana. Zoticus, who lived at the time of Montanus, was Bishop of Conana, or of Comama, not of Comana in Cappadocia. Cosmas of Conana appeared at Constantinople in 680. Conana is to-day Gunen, in the vilayet of Adana.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Comayagua

The Diocese of Comayagua, suffragan to Guatemala, includes the entire Republic of Honduras in Central America, a territory of about 46,250 square miles, and a population (1902), exclusive of uncivilized Indians, of 684,400, mostly baptized Catholics. It also includes a group of islets in the Bay of Honduras (Ruatan, Bonacca, Utila, Barbareta, and Moret). The surface is mountainous, with many fertile plains and plateaux. Communication is difficult, as there are few good roads, but a railroad from Puerto Cortez to La Pimienta (sixty miles) is destined to reach the Pacific. The mineral wealth is great, and the trade in bananas very lucrative. The climate in the interior is usually healthy, but fevers are frequent along the low coast. The capital of the State, Tegucigalpa, has 17,000 inhabitants. The first missionaries were Franciscans, though the records of their labours have disappeared in the disastrous conflagrations that the wars of the nineteenth century visited on Comayagua, and in which the archives of the cathedral perished. The diocese was established in 1527 by Clement VII, and confirmed in 1539 by Paul III. It is supposed that Bishop Pedrasa, who went in that year to Trujillo, was the first bishop. Under the fourth, Jeronimo de Corella, Pius IV transferred (1561) the see to Nueva Valladolid, now Comayagua. The prosperous missions among the savage Indians on the north coast were broken up in 1601 by English pirates; colonists and missionaries were scattered, and the Indians (now about 90,000) relapsed into their original savagery. The revolution of 1821 did great damage to the Church. Before that time there were more than 300 ecclesiastical foundations, and public worship was everywhere carried on with dignity. The revolutionary Government confiscated the ecclesiastical property to the value of more than a million pesos, according to a presidential message of 1842. Since then parishes depended for public worship on precarious alms, and the clergy diminished in number. Nevertheless, tithes were still paid to the Church, and from them the bishop, the cathedral services, and the seminary were supported. The latter was open only to externs and only the sciences were taught; ecclesiastics and young men destined for the law were educated there together.

Between 1878 and 1880 the new president of Honduras, imposed by Guatemala, confiscated anew the ecclesiastical resources put together by the faithful, the parochial properties, residences of clergy and churches, abolished the tithes, and, to complete the ruin of the ecclesiastical order, suppressed in the university the courses of canon law and moral theology, and in the colleges even the study of Latin. These oppressive acts hampered greatly the proper formation of the clergy, public worship, and the administration of the diocese. Lately the seminary has been reopened, but despite the separation of Church and State the former is subject to many restrictions. The civil government is no longer hostile, but in its name provincial and local authorities exhibit no little hostility to the parish priests. The episcopal city, which has 8000 inhabitants, suffered much from the civil wars of the period of federation (1823-39) and has never regained its former size or prosperity. Bishop Joseph Maria Martinez Cabanas (1908) is the twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth of the line. The five parish priests of the Department of Comayagua represent the former cathedral canons, and assist the bishop on occasions; at his death they elect the vicar capitular. There are seventy secular priests, and no regulars; the Government has never tolerated the return of the latter since their expulsion (1821). There is a missionary on the northern coast and at Comayagua a Salesian Father. The wealthier classes of the diocese, with very few exceptions, are indifferent to religion. There are no parochial schools, as the people of the pueblos are unable to support them, after paying taxes for the public schools; moreover the clergy are unable to conduct them, being obliged at all times to move about from one small town to another and among the widely scattered villages and the mountains. (See HONDURAS; GUATEMALA.)

FELICIANO HERRERA

François Combefis

Patrologist, b. November, 1605, at Marmande in Guyenne; d. at Paris, 23 March, 1679. He made his preliminary studies in the Jesuit College at Bordeaux, and joined the Dominican Order in 1624. After finishing his theological course, he became professor of theology, and taught in several houses of his order. In 1640 he was transferred to Paris where the opportunities for research afforded by the libraries led him to abandon teaching and to undertake the publication of patristic texts. He published successively the works of Amphilochius of Iconium, of Methodius of Patara, and of Andreas of Crete, together with some hitherto unedited writings of St. John Chrysostom. In 1648 appeared his "Novum Auctarium Graeco-Latinae Bibliothecae Patrum" in two parts, exegitical and historico-dogmatic. The "Historia haeresis monothelitarum sanctaeque in cam sextae synodi actorum vindiciae", which formed part of the historical section of this work, met with much opposition in Rome, principally because it was at variance with the opinions of Bellarmine and Baronius. The character of the work in which Combefis was engaged met so thoroughly the approval of the French clergy that in an assembly of the French bishops held in Paris, 1655, an annual subsidy was voted to enable him to carry on his publications, the sum voted being subsequently doubled. This generous action produced the most fruitful results, and the number of his publications increased every year. In 1656 he edited St. John Chrysostom's "De educandis Liberis", in 1660 a collection of Acts of the martyrs. In 1662 there appeared the "Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria", or "Preachers' Library of the Fathers", a rich and comprehensive work, prepared in the most painstaking manner from all the available manuscripts, and containing a short historical account of all the authors whose names appeared in the work. Another important work, "Auctarium Novissimum Bibliothecae Patrum", appeared at Paris in 1672. The three following years saw many publications from the pen of Combefis. In 1674 appeared "Ecclesiastes Graecus, i.e. illustrium Graecorum Patrum ac oratorum digesti sermones ac tractatus", etc. In 1675 appeared "Theodoti Ancyrani adv. Nestorium liber et S. Germani patriarchae Constantinop. in S. Mariae Dormitionem et Translationem oratio historica", and in the same year an edition of the works of Maximus Confessor in two volumes with a Latin translation. A third volume of the works of Maximus Confessor was ready when Combefis died. Perhaps the most important of the works of Combefis is his edition of St. Basil in two volumes, "Basilius magnus ex integro recensitus, textus ex fide optimorum codicum ubique castigatus, auctus, illustratus, haud incerta quandoque condectura emendatus. Versiones recognitae", etc. (Paris, 1679). This is a work of the highest merit and shows the critical skill of Combefis at its best, though later surpassed by the famous Maurist edition (Paris, 1721-30). Besides these and several other critical editions of works of the Fathers, there are in existence some polemical works of Combefis which have little value for the present time. Though known to all the learned men of his time, and widely celebrated even in his lifetime for his great learning, Combefis always remained a mild and obedient monk.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Daniel Comboni

Missionary, b. 15 March, 1831 in Limone San Giovanni near Brescia, Italy; d. 10 Oct., 1881, at Khartoum. Educated in Mazza's Institute, Verona, he learned, in addition to theology, several languages and medicine. Ordained priest in 1854, he was sent (1857) by Don Mazza to Central Africa, but returned (1859) because of ill health. After teaching in Mazza's Institute from 1861-64 he published "Piano per la rigenerazione dell' Africa" (Turin, 1864) and visited France, Spain, England, Germany, and Austria to collect funds. In Verona Comboni established (1867) his Istituto delle Missioni per la Nigrizia to educate priests and brothers for the missions, and the Istituto delle Pie Madri to supply female help; he also opened similar institutions in Cairo, Egypt, to acclimatize missionaries for the fever-stricken regions of Central Africa. Appointed (1872) Pro-vicar Apostolic of Central Africa (vicariate since 1846), embracing Nubia, Egyptian Sudan, and the territory south to the Lakes (with nearly 100,000,000 inhabitants) Comboni began his great work with only two missions, El-Obeid (Kordofan) and Khartoum. Others rapidly followed: Berber, Delen, Malbes (near El-Obeid). In 1877 Comboni was made Vicar Apostolic of Central Africa and titular Bishop of Claudiopolis. His death was pronounced a "great loss" by Leo XIII.

Comboni aroused the interest of Europe in negro missions, and journeyed five times from Africa to Europe to secure missionaries and funds. By means of his intimate acquaintance with the khedive and the Governor of the Sudan he effectually checked the slave-trade. Besides his "Quadro storico delle Scoperte Africane" (1880) he contributed material for scientific works, notably on geography. Mitterrutzner's works on the Dinka and Bari dialects (Brixen, 1866, 1867) are based on Comboni's manuscripts. He was a "language genius" (Cardinal Simeoni), master of six European tongues, of Arabic, and the dialects of the Dinka, Bari, and Nuba negroes. His "Istituto", since 1894 the Congregation of the Sons of the Sacred Heart, continues his work in Central Africa. Mgr. Geyer (appointed vicar Apostolic in 1903) was assisted in 1907 by 29 priests, 23 brothers, and 35 sisters ministering to 11 churches, 9 schools, and 6 orphanages.

JOHN M. LENHART

St. Comgall

Founder and abbot of the great Irish monastery at Bangor, flourished in the sixth century. The year of his birth is uncertain, but according to the testimony of the Irish annals it must be placed between 510 and 520; his death is said to have occurred in 602 ("Annals of Tighernach" and "Chronicon Scotorum"), or 597 (Annals of Innisfallen). He was born in Dalaradia in Ulster near the place now known as Magheramorne in the present County Antrim. He seems to have served first as a soldier, and on his release from military service he is said to have studied at Clonard with St. Finnian, and at Clonmacnoise with St. Ciaran, who died in 549. We next find him in Ulster in an island on Lough Erne accompanied by a few friends following a very severe form of monastic life. He intended to go to Britain, but was dissuaded from this step by Lugidius, the bishop who ordained him, at whose advice he remained in Ireland and set himself to spread the monastic life throughout the country. The most famous of the Comgall is Bangor, situated in the present County Down, on the Southern shore of Belfast Lough and directly opposite to Carrickfergus. According to the Irish annals Bangor was founded not later than 552, though Ussher and most of the later writers on the subject assign the foundation to the year 555. According to Adamnan's "Life of Columba", there was a very close connection between Comgall and Columba though there does not appear to be sufficient authority for stating that Comgall was the disciple of Columba in any strict sense. He is said to have been the friend of St. Brendan, St. Cormac, St. Cainnech, and Finbarr of Moville. After intense suffering he received the Eucharist from St. Fiacra and expired in the monastery at Bangor.

Comgall belonged to what is known as the Second Order of Irish Saints. These flourished in the Irish Church during the sixth century. They were for the most part educated in Britain, or received their training from those who had grown up under the influence of the British Schools. They were the founders of the great Irish monastic schools, and contributed much to the spread of monasticism in the Irish Church. It is an interesting question how far Comgall, or men like him, had advanced in their establishments at Bangor and elsewhere in introducing the last stages of monasticism then developed on the Continent by St. Benedict. In other words, did St. Congall give his monks at Bangor a strict monastic rule resembling the Rule of St. Benedict? There has come down to us a Rule of St. Comgall in Irish, but the evidence would not warrant us in saying that as it stands at present it could be attributed to him. The fact, however, that Columbanus, a disciple of Comgall and himself a monk of Bangor, drew up for his Continental monasteries a "Regula Monachorum" wound lead us to believe that there had been a similar organization in Bangor in his time. This, however, is not conclusive, since Columbanus might have derived inspiration from the Benedictine Rule then widely spread over South-Western Europe. St. Comgall is mentioned in the "Life of Columbanus" by Jonas, as the superior of Bangor, under whom St. Columbanus had studied. He is also mentioned under 10 May, his feast-day in the "Felire" of Oengus the Culdee published by Whitley Stokes for the Henry Bradshaw Society (2nd ed.), and his name is commemorated in the Stowe Missal (MacCarthy), and in the Martyrology of Tallaght.

JAMES MACCAFFREY

Commandments of God

Called also simply THE COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, or THE DECALOGUE (Gr. deka, ten, and logos, a word), the Ten Words of Sayings, the latter name generally applied by the Greek Fathers.

The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator's will in relation to man's whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments in the Books of Moses, but the injunctions are distinctly tenfold, and are found almost identical in both sources. The order, too, is the same except for the final prohibitions pronounced against concupiscence, that of Deuteronomy being adopted in preference to Exodus. A confusion, however, exists in the numbering, which is due to a difference of opinion concerning the initial precept on Divine worship. The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles is based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of "Questions of Exodus" ("Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII", Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent. It is followed also by the German Lutherans, except those of the school of Bucer. This arrangement makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against--the reference to idols being regarded as mere application of the precept to adore but one God and the prohibition as directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. According to this manner of reckoning, the injunction forbidding the use of the Lord's Name in vain comes second in order; and the decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence--the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods. Another division has been adopted by the English and Helvetian Protestant churches on the authority of Philo Judæus, Josephus Origen, and others, whereby two Commandments are made to cover the matter of worship, and thus the numbering of the rest is advanced one higher; and the Tenth embraces both the Ninth and Tenth of the Catholic division. It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as to group at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils.

The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

• Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).
• Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.
• And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).
• Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).

The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

• His life is the object of the Fifth;
• the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
• his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
• his good name, of the Eighth;
• And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
• and in his property rights by the Tenth.

This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.

JOHN H. STAPLETON

Commandments of the Church

We shall consider:

I. the nature of the Commandments of the Church in general;

II. the history of the Commandments of the Church;

III. their classification.

I. NATURE OF THESE COMMANDMENTS

The authority to enact laws obligatory on all the faithful belongs to the Church by the very nature of her constitution. Entrusted with the original deposit of Christian revelation, she is the appointed public organ and interpreter of that revelation for all time. For the effective discharge of her high office, she must be empowered to give to her laws the gravest sanction. These laws, when they bind universally, have for their object:

• the definition or explanation of some doctrine, either by way of positive pronouncement or by the condemnation of opposing error;
• the prescription of the time and manner in which a Divine law, more or less general and indeterminate, is to be observed, e.g. the precept obliging the faithful to receive the Holy Eucharist during the paschal season and to the Holy Eucharist during the paschal season and to confess their sins annually;
• the defining of the sense of the moral law in its application to difficult cases of conscience, e.g. many of the decisions of the Roman Congregations;
• some matter of mere discipline serving to safeguard the observance of the higher law, e.g. the Commandments to contribute to the support of oneUs pastors (Vacant, Dict. de theol. cath., s.v.).

All these laws when binding on the faithful universally are truly commandments of the Church. In the technical sense, however, the table of these Commandments does not contain doctrinal pronouncements. Such an inclusion would render it too complex. The Commandments of the Church (in this restricted sense) are moral and ecclesiastical, and as a particular code of precepts are necessarily broad in character and limited in number.

II. HISTORY OF THE COMMANDMENTS

We outline here only in a general way the history of the form and number of the precepts of the Church. The discussion of the content of the several Commandments and of the penalties imposed by the Church for violation of these Commandments will be found under the various subjects to which they refer. We do not find in the early history of the Church any fixed and formal body of Church Commandments. As early, however, as the time of Constantine, especial insistence was put upon the obligation to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, to receive the sacraments and to abstain from contracting marriage at certain seasons. In the seventh-century Penitentiary of Theodore of Canterbury we find penalties imposed on those who contemn the Sunday and fail to keep the fasts of the Church as well as legislation regarding the reception of the Eucharist; but no reference is here made to any precepts of the Church accepted in a particular sense. Neither do we discover such special reference in one of the short sermons addressed to neophytes and attributed to St. Boniface, but probably of later date, in which the hearers are urged to observe Sunday, pay tithes to the Church, observe the fasts, and receive at times the Holy Eucharist. In German books of popular instruction and devotion from the ninth century onwards special emphasis was laid on the obligation to discharge these duties. Particularly does this appear in the forms prepared for the examination of conscience. According to a work written at this time by Regino, Abbot of Prüm (d. 915), entitled "Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis", the bishop in his visitation is, among other inquiries, to ask

if anyone has not kept the fast of Lent, or of the ember-days, or of the rogations, or that which may have been appointed by the bishop for the staying of any plague; if there by any one who has not gone to Holy Communion three time in the year, that is at Easter, Pentecost and Christmas; if there by any one who has withheld tithes from God and His saints; if there by anyone so perverse and so alienated from God as not to come to Church at least on Sundays; if there be anyone who has not gone to confession once in the year, that is at the beginning of Lent, and has not done penance for his sins (Hafner, Zur Geschichte der Kirchengebote, in Theologische Quartalschrift, LXXX, 104).

The insistence on the precepts here implied, and the fact that they were almost invariably grouped together in the books already referred to, had the inevitable effect of giving them a distinct character. They came to be regarded as special Commandments of the Church. Thus in a book of tracts of the thirteenth century attributed to Celestine V (though the authenticity of this work has been denied) a separate tractate is given to the precepts of the Church and is divided into four chapters, the first of which treats of fasting, the second of confession and paschal Communion, the third of interdicts on marriage, and the fourth of tithes. In the fourteenth century Ernest von Parduvitz, Archbishop of Prague, instructed his priests to explain in popular sermons the principal points of the catechism, the Our Father, the Creed, the Commandments of God and of the Church (Hafner, loc. cit., 115). A century later (1470) the catechism of Dietrick Coelde, the first, it is said, to be written in German, explicitly set forth that there were five Commandments of the Church. In his "Summa Theologica" (part I, tit. xvii, p. 12) St. Antoninus of Florence (1439) enumerates ten precepts of the Church universally binding on the faithful. These are: to observe certain feasts, to keep the prescribed fasts, to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, to confess once a year, to receive Holy Communion during paschal time, to pay tithes, to abstain from any act upon which an interdict has been placed entailing excommunication, to refrain also from any act interdicted under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ, to avoid association with the excommunicated, finally not to attend Mass or other religious functions celebrated by a priest living in open concubinage. In the sixteenth century the Spanish canonist, Martin Aspilcueta (1586), gives a list of five principal precepts of obligation, to fast at certain prescribed times, to pay tithes, to go to confession once a year and to receive Holy Communion at Easter (Enchiridion, sive manuale confessariorum et poenitentium, Rome, 1588, ch. xxi, n. 1). At this time, owing to the prevalence of heresy, there appeared many popular works in defence of the authority of the Church and setting forth in a special manner her precepts. Such among others were the "Summa Doctrinæ Christianæ" (1555) of St. Peter Canisius and the "Doctrina Christiana" of Bellarmine (1589). It is plain, however, that the precepts of the Church, as a particular and distinct body of laws, were recognized long before the sixteenth century; the contention that they were first definitely formulated by St. Peter Canisius is unwarranted.

III. CLASSIFICATION

The Church is her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church. The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the "Catechismus ad parochos" published by order of the council and known as the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" or "Roman Catechism". We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to oneUs pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter. Owing undoubtedly to the influence of Canisius, the catechisms generally used at present throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary have adopted the above enumeration. The fourth precept has, however, been amended so as to allow of confession being made to any duly authorized priest.

In Spanish America the number of church precepts is also five; this being the number as we have seen, set down by Aspilcueta in the sixteenth century. Here, however, the First and Second commandment in the table of Canisius are combined into one, and the precept to pay tithes appears. It is to be noted, also, that the precept of annual confession is more specific; it enjoins that this confession be made in Lent, or before, if there be danger of death. (Synod of Mexico, 1585, Lib. I, tit. i, in Hardouin, Conc., X, 1596.) French and Italian catechists reckon six precepts of the church, the enumeration given by Bellarmine. According to this writer the Commandments of the Church are: To hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days; to fast during Lent, on prescribed vigils, and the ember-days; to abstain from meat on Fridays and Saturdays; to go to confession once a year; to receive Holy Communion at Easter; to pay tithes; and finally not to solemnize marriage during the prohibited times.

The French catechisms, following that of Bossuet, omit the last two precepts, but retain the same number as that given by Bellarmine. This they do by making two Commandments cover the obligations to observe Sunday and the Holy Days, and two also regarding the obligations of fast and abstinence. It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:

• to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;
• to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;
• to go to confession at least once a year;
• to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;
• to contribute to the support of our pastors;
• not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

This list is the same as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Commemoration (in Liturgy)

The recital of a part of the Office or Mass assigned to a certain feast or day when the whole cannot be said. When two Offices fall on the same day and when, according to the rules of the rebrics, one of them cannot be transferred to another day, it is in part celebrated by way of a commemoration. Offices have different degrees of importance (doubles, semi-doubles, etc.) assigned them at their institution, and it is this that mainly determines precedence in cases of conflict.

At Mass a commemoration consists in saying the collect, Secret, and Post-Communion proper to the feast or day which is being commemorated. In the Office commemorations occur at Lauds and Vespers and consist in reciting the antiphons, with their versicles and responses, of the Benedictus and Magnificat respectively, adding in each case an oremus with the oration proper. These are called special commemorations as distinguished from the common, which are in the Office when the latter is of an inferior rite. These commemorative prayers of the Mass vary according to the season of the year. When two or more special commemorations have to be made, the order is determined by the rank or relative importance of the feasts and Offices. When two Offices fall on the same day there is said to be "occurrence"; and when the second Vespers of a preceding Office coincides with the first Vespers of the following there is "concurrence." When one of the two occurring, or concurring, Offices is very solemn and the other relatively unimportant, all mention of the latter is omitted.

PATRICK MORRISROE

Commendatory Abbot

An ecclesiastic, or sometimes a layman, who holds an abbey in commendam, that is, who draws its revenues and, if an ecclesiastic, may also have some jurisdiction, but does not exercise any authority over its inner monastic discipline. Originally only vacant abbeys, or such as were temporarily without an actual superior, were given in commendam, in the latter case only until an actual superior was elected or appointed. An abbey is held in commendam, i.e. provisorily, in distinction to one held in titulum, which is a permanent benefice.

As early as the time of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) vacant abbeys were given in commendam to bishops who had been driven from their episcopal sees by the invading barbarians. The practice began to be seriously abused in the eighth century when the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish kings assumed the right to set commendatory abbots over monasteries that were occupied by religious communities. Often these commendatory abbots were laymen, vassals of the kings, or others who were authorized to draw the revenues and manage the temporal affairs of the monasteries in reward for military services. While the notorious Marozia was influential in Rome and Italy, and during the reigns of Henry IV of Germany, Philip I of France, William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry I and II of England, the abuse reached its climax. The most worthless persons were often made commendatory abbots, who in many cases brought about the temporal and spiritual ruin of the monasteries. When in 1122 the dispute concerning investiture was settled in favour of the church, the appointment of laymen as commendatory abbots and many other abuses were abolished. The abuses again increased while the popes resided at Avignon (1309-1377) and especially during the schism (1378-1417), when the popes, as well as the antipopes, gave numerous abbeys in commendam in order to increase the number of their adherents.

After the eighth century various attempts were made by popes and councils to regulate the appointment of commendatory abbots. Still, the abuses continued. Boniface VIII (1294-1303) decreed that a benefice with the cure of souls attached should be granted in commendam only in great necessity or when evident advantage would accrue to the Church, but never for more than six months (c. 15, VI, De elect., 1, 6). Clement V (1305-14) revoked benefices which had been granted by him in commendam at an earlier date (Extr. comm., c. 2, De praeb., 3, 2). The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, cap. xxi, de Regularibus) determined that vacant monasteries should be bestowed only on pious and virtuous regulars, and that the principal or motherhouse of an order and the abbeys and priories founded immediately therefrom should no longer be granted in commendam. The succeeding Bull "Superna" of Gregory XIII, and the Constitution "Pastoralis" of Innocent X greatly checked the abuses, but did not abolish them entirely. Especially in France they continued to flourish to the detriment of the monasteries. Finally, the French Revolution and the general secularization of monasteries in the beginning of the eighteenth century destroyed the evil with the good. Since that time commendatory abbots have become very rare, and the former abuses have been abolished by wise regulations. There are still a few commendatory abbots among the cardinals; Pope Pius X himself was Commendatory Abbot of the Benedictine monastery at Subiaco near Rome.

The powers of a commendatory abbot are as follows: If the monastery is occupied by a religious community where there is a separate mensa abbatialis, i.e. where the abbot and the convent have each a separate income, the commendatory abbot, who must then be an ecclesiastic, has jurisdiction in foro externo over the members of the community and enjoys all the rights and privileges of an actual abbot, and if, as is generally the case, the monastery has a special superior, he is subject to the commendatory abbot as a claustral prior is subject to his actual abbot. If there is no separate mensa abbatialis, the power of the commendatory abbot extends only over the temporal affairs of the monastery. In case of vacant monasteries the commendatory abbot generally has all the rights and privileges of an actual abbot.

MICHAEL OTT

Giovanni Francesco Commendone

Cardinal and Papal Nuncio, born at Venice, 17 March, 1523; died at Padua, 26 Dec., 1584 After receiving a thorough education in the humanities and in jurisprudence at the University of Padua, he came to Rome in 1550. The ambassador of Venice presented him to Pope Julius III, who was so favourably impressed by the unusual learning of the youthful scholar that he appointed him one of his secretaries. After successfully performing various papal missions of minor importance, he accompanied Cardinal Legate Dandino to the Netherlands, whence Pope Julius III sent him in 1553 on an important mission to Queen Mary Tudor, who had just succeeded Edward VI on the English throne. He was to treat with the new queen concerning the restoration of the Catholic Faith in England. Accompanied by Penning, a servant and confidant of Cardinal Reginald Pole, Commendone arrived in London on 8 Aug., 1553. Though Mary Tudor was a loyal Catholic, she was surrounded at court by numerous opponents of papal authority, who made it extremely difficult for Commendone to obtain a secret interview with her. By chance he met John Lee, a relation of the Duke of Norfolk and an attendant at court, with whom he had become acquainted in italy, and Lee succeeded in arranging the interview. Mary received Commendone kindly, and expressed her desire to restore the Catholic Faith and to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the pope, but considered it prudent to act slowly on account of her powerful opponents, Commendone hastened to Rome, arriving there on 11 September, and informed the pope of the joyful news, at the same time handing him a personal letter from the queen. Commendone continued to hold the office of papal secretary under Paul IV, who esteemed him very highly and in return for his services appointed him Bishop of Zante in 1555. In the summer of 1556 he accompanied Cardinal Legate Scipione Rebiba on a papal mission to the Netherlands, to the courts of Emperor Charles V and King Philip II, the consort of Queen Mary of England. Commendone had received instructions to remain as nuncio at the court of Philip, but he was recalled to Rome soon after his arrival in the Netherlands. On 16 September of the same year the pope sent him as extraordinary legate to the Governments of Urbino, Ferrara, Venice, and Parma in order to obtain help against the Spanish troops who were occupying the Campagna and threatening Rome.

In 1560, when Pius IV determined to reopen the Council of Trent, Commendone was sent as legate to Germany to invite the Catholic and Protestant Estates to the council. He arrived in Vienna on 3 Jan., 1561, and after consulting with Emperor Ferdinand, set out on 14 January for Naumburg, where the Protestant Estates were holding a religious convention, He was accompanied by Delfino, Bishop of Lesina, who had been sent as papal nuncio to Ferdinand four months previously and was still at the imperial court. Having arrived at Naumburg on 28 January, they were admitted to the convention on 5 February and urged upon the assembled Protestant Estates the necessity of a Protestant representation at the Council of Trent in order to restore religious union, but all their efforts were of no avail. From Naumburg, Commendone traveled northward to invite the Estates of Northern Germany. He went by way of Leipzig and Magdeburg to Berlin, where he arrived on 19 February and was well received by Joachim of Münsterberg, the Elector of Brandenburg. Joachim spoke respectfully of the pope and the Catholic Church and expressed his desire for a religious reconciliation, but did not promise to appear at the council. Here Commendone met also the son of Joachim, the young Archbishop Sigismund of Magdeburg, who promised to appear at the council but did not keep his word. Leaving Berlin, Commendone visited Beeskow, Wolfenbüttel, Hanover, Hildesheim, Iburg, Paderborn, Cologne, Cleves, the Netherlands, and Aachen, inviting all the Estates he met in these places. From Aachen he turned to Lubeck with the intention of crossing the sea to invite Kings Frederick II of Denmark and Erie XIV of Sweden. The King of Denmark, however, refused to receive the legate, while the King of Sweden invited him to England, whither he had planned to go in the near future. Queen Elizabeth of England had forbidden the papal nuncio Hieronimo Martinengo to cross the English Channel when he was sent to invite the queen to the council, hence it was very improbable that she would allow Commendone to come to England. He therefore repaired to Antwerp, awaiting further instructions from Rome. Being recalled by the pope, he returned to Italy in Dec., 1561, by way of Lorraine and Western Germany. Although his mission was without any results as regards Protestant representation at the Council of Trent, still his spotless character and his strong and unselfish pleas for a return to Catholic unity made a deep impression upon many Protestant Estates. The numerous letters which Commendone wrote during this mission to St. Charles Borromeo present a sad but faithful picture of the ecclesiastical conditions in Germany during those times. These and others were published in "Miscellanea di Storia Italiana" (Turin, 1869, VI, 1-240).

In Jan., 1563, the legates of the Council of Trent sent Commendone to Emperor Ferdinand at Innsbruck, to treat with him regarding some demands which he had made upon the council in his "Libel of Reformation". In October of the same year Pius IV sent him as legate to King Sigismund of Poland with instruction to induce this ruler to give political recognition to the Tridentine decrees. Yielding to the requests of Commendone and of Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, Sigismund not only enforced the Tridentine reforms, but also allowed the Jesuits, the most hated enemies of the Reformers, to enter Poland. While still in Poland, on the recommendation of St. Charles Borromeo, Commendone was created cardinal on 12 March, 1565. He remained in Poland until the death of Pius IV (9 Dec., 1565), and before returning to Italy he went as legate of the new pope, Pius V. to the Diet of Augsburg, which was opened by Maximilian II on 23 March, 1566. He had previously warned the emperor under pain of excommunication not to discuss religion at the diet. He also seized the opportunity to exhort the assembled Estates to carry into execution the Tridentine decrees. In Sept., 1568. Pius V sent him a second time as legate to Maximilian II. In muon with Biglia, the resident nuncio at Vienna, he was to induce the emperor to make no new religious concessions to the Protestant Estates of Lower Austria and to recall several concessions which he had already made. While engaged in this mission, Commendone was also empowered by a papal Brief dated 10 Oct., 1568, to make an apostolic visitation of the churches and monasteries of Germany and the adjacent provinces. An account of this visitation in the Dioceses of Passau and Salzburg in the year 1569 is published in "Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benedictiner und Cistercienser Orden" (Brünn, 1893, XIV, 385-398 and 567-589). In Nov., 1571, Pius V sent him as legate to the emperor and to King Sigismund of Poland in the interest of a crusade. After the death of King Sigismund, in 1572, he promoted the election of Henry, Duke of Anjou, as King of Poland, thereby incurring the displeasure of the emperor. Upon his return to Italy in 1573, Gregory XIII appointed him a member of the newly founded Congregatio Germanica, the purpose of which was to safeguard Catholic interests in Germany. He was so highly esteemed by the Sacred College that, when Gregory XIII fell dangerously ill, it was generally believed that Commendone would be elected pope, but he was outlived by Gregory.

GRAZIANI. Vita Commendoni Cardinalis (Paris, 1669), Fr. tr. by FLECHIER (Paris, 1671, and Lyons, 1702); The Cambridge Modern History (London and New York, 1907), II and (1905), III, passim; PALLAVICINO Istoria del Concilio di Trento (Rome, 1846), II, 13, 15, III, 24; PRISAC, Die Legaten Commendone und Capacini in Berlin (Neuss, 1846); REIMAN, Die Sendung des Nunzius Commendone nach Deutschl. im Jahre 1561 in Forschungen zur deutsch. Gesch. (Göttingen, 1867), 237-80; SUSTA, Die römische Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter Pius IV. (Wien, 1904). I; SCHWARZ, Der Briefwechsel des K. Maximilian II mit Papst Pius V. (Paderborn, 1889); GRAZIANI. De scriptis invita Minerva, cum adnotationibus H. Lagomarsini (Florence, 1745-6).

MICHAEL OTT.

Commentaries on the Bible

"To write a full history of exegesis", says Farrar, "would require the space of many volumes." Nor is this surprising when it is borne in mind that the number of commentaries on such a recent writer as Dante reached the grand total of thirteen hundred at the beginning of the twentieth century. As the ground to be covered is so extensive, only the barest outline can be given here. The bibliography at the end will enable the reader to pursue the subject further. We touch upon the salient points of Jewish, patristic, medieval, and modern (Catholic and non-Catholic) commentaries. We begin with the Jewish writers, and deal briefly with the Targums, Mishna, and Talmuds; for, though these cannot be regarded as Bible commentaries in the proper sense of the word, they naturally lead up to these latter. Those who require further information on this head may be referred to the special articles in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, and to the works mentioned in the bibliography. Special attention is directed to the list of the best modern non-Catholic commentaries in English [V (3)]. The article is divided as follows:

I. Jewish Commentaries

II. Patristic

III. Medieval

IV. Modern Catholic

V. Non-Catholic

I. JEWISH COMMENTARIES

(1) Philo

There was a story among the Jews in the Middle Ages to the effect that Aristotle accompanied Alexander the Great to Jerusalem, and, with characteristic Greek craftiness, obtained possession of the wisdom of Solomon, which he subsequently palmed off on his countrymen as his own. This accounted for everything that was good in Aristotle; the defects were the only thing peculiar to the philosopher. That Greek literature, in general, got its inspiration from Moses was an uncritical idea that dated back as far as Philo, the great Jewish writer of Alexandria. A visitor to Alexandria at the time when Christ was preaching in Galilee would find there and in its vicinity a million Jews using the Septuagint as their Bible, and could enter their magnificent Great Synagogue of which they were justly proud. Whoever had not seen it was not supposed to have beheld the glory of Israel. The members of their Sanhedrin, according to Sukkah, were seated on seventy-one golden thrones valued at tens of thousands of talents of gold; and the building was so vast that a flag had to be waved to show the people when to respond. At the head of this assembly, on the highest throne, was seated the alabarch, the brother of Philo. Philo himself was a man of wealth and learning, who mingled with all classes of men and frequented the theatre and the great library. Equally at home in the Septuagint and the Greek classics, he was struck and perplexed by the many beautiful and noble thoughts contained in the latter, which could bear comparison with many passages of the Bible. As this difficulty must have frequently presented itself to the minds of his coreligionists, he endeavoured to meet it by saying that all that was great in Socrates, Plato, etc. originated with Moses. He set about reconciling Pagan philosophy with the Old Testament, and for this purpose he made extensive use of the allegorical method of interpretation. Many passages of the Pentateuch were not intended to be taken literally. They were literally false, hut allegorically true. He did not hit upon the distinction, made later by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers, between natural and revealed religion. The Bible contains not only revealed but also natural religion, free from error and with Divine sanction. Pagan systems may have natural religion highly developed, but with much concomitant error. Though this distinction did not occur to Philo, his exegesis served to tide over the difficulty for the time amongst the Hellenistic Jews, and had great influence on Origen and other Alexandrian Christian writers.

(2) The Targums

In order to get on the main lines of Jewish interpretation it is necessary to turn to the Holy Land. Farrar, in his "Life of Christ", says that it has been suggested that when Christ visited the Temple, at twelve years of age, there may have been present among the doctors Jonathan ben Uzziel, once thought the author of the Yonathan Targum, and the venerable teachers Hillel and Shammai, the handers-on of the Mishna. The Targums (the most famous of which is that on the Pentateuch erroneously attributed to Onkelos, a misnomer for Aquila, according to Abrahams) were the only approach to anything like a commentary on the Bible before the time of Christ. They were interpretative translations or paraphrases from Hebrew into Aramaic for the use of the synagogues when, after the Exile, the people had lost the knowledge of Hebrew. It is doubtful whether any of them were committed to writing before the Christian Era. They are important as indicating the character of the Hebrew text used, and because they agree with the New Testament in interpreting certain passages Messianically which later Jews denied to have any Messianic bearing.

(3) The Mishna and Talmuds

Hillel and Shammai were the last "pair" of several generations of "pairs" of teachers. These pairs were the successors of the early scribes who lived after the Exile. These teachers are said to have handed down and expanded the Oral Law, which, according to the uncritical view of many Jews, began with Moses. This Oral Law, whose origin is buried in obscurity, consists of legal and liturgical interpretations and applications of the Pentateuch. As no part of it was written down, it was preserved by constant repetition (Mishna). On the destruction of Jerusalem several rabbis, learned in this Law, settled at Jamnia, near the sea, twenty-eight miles west of Jerusalem. Jamnia became the head-quarters of Jewish learning until 135. Then schools were opened at Sepphoris and Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee. The rabbis comforted their countrymen by teaching that the study of the Law (Oral as well as Written) took the place of the sacrifices. They devoted their energies to arranging the Unwritten Torah, or Law. One of the most successful at this was Rabbi Akiba who took part in the revolt of Bar-Kokba, against the Romans, and lost his life (135). The work of systematization was completed and probably committed to writing by the Jewish patriarch at Tiberias, Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi "The Prince" (150-210). He was of noble birth, wealthy, learned, and is called by the Jews "Our Master the Saint" or simply Rabbi par excellence. The compilation made by this Rabbi is the Mishna. It is written in New Hebrew, and consists of six great divisions or orders, each division containing, on an average, about ten tractates, each tractate being made up of several chapters. The Mishna may be said to be a compilation of Jewish traditional moral theology, liturgy, law, etc. There were other traditions not embodied in the work of Rabbi, and these are called additional Mishna.

The discussions of later generations of rabbis all centred round the text of the Mishna. Interpreters or "speakers" laboured upon it both in Palestine and Babylonia (until 500), and the results are comprised in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. The word Talmud means teaching, doctrine. Each Talmud consists of two parts, the Mishna (in Hebrew), in sixty-three tractates, and an explanation of the same (Gemara), ten or twelve times as long. The explanatory portion of the Palestinian Talmud is written in Western Aramaic and that of the Babylonian Talmud in Eastern Aramaic, which is closely allied to Syriac or Mandaic. The passages in the Gemara containing additional Mishna are, however, given in New Hebrew. Only thirty-nine tractates of the Mishna have Gemara. The Talmud, then, consists of the Mishna (traditions from 450 b.c. till a.d. 200), together with a commentary thereon, Gemara, the latter being composed about a.d. 200-500. Next to the Bible the Babylonian Talmud is the great religious book of orthodox Jews, though the Palestinian Talmud is more highly prized by modern scholars. From the year 500 till the Middle Ages the rabbis (geonim) in Babylonia and elsewhere were engaged in commenting on the Talmud and reconciling it with the Bible. A list of such commentaries is given in "The Jewish Encyclopedia".

(4) The Midrashim

Simultaneously with the Mishna and Talmud there grew up a number of Midrashim, or commentaries on the Bible. some of these were legalistic, like the Gemara of the Talmud but the most important were of an edifying, homiletic character (Midrash Haggadah). These latter are important for the corroborative light which they throw on the language of the New Testament. The Gospel of St. John is seen to be steeped in early Jewish phraseology, and the words of Ps. cix, "The Lord said to my Lord", etc. are in one place applied to the Messias, as they are in St. Matthew, though Rashi and later Jews deprived them of their Messianic sense by applying them to Abraham.

(5) Karaite Commentators

When the nature of the Talmud and other such writings is considered, it is not surprising that they produced a violent reaction against Rabbinism even among the Jews themselves. In spite of the few gems of thought scattered through it at long intervals, there is nothing in any literature so entirely uninviting as the Talmud. The opposition to these "traditions of men" finally took shape. Anan ben David, a prominent Babylonian Jew in the eighth century, rejected Rabbinism for the written Old Testament and became the founder of the sect known a Karaites (a word indicating their preference for the written Bible). This schism produced great energy and ability on both sides. The principal Karaite Bible commentators were Mahavendi (ninth century); Abul-Faraj Harun (ninth century), exegete and Hebrew grammarian; Solomon ben Yerucham (tenth century); Sahal-ben Mazliach (died 950), Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer; Joseph al-Bazir (died 930); Japhet ben Ali, the greatest Karaite commentator of the tenth century; and Judah Hadassi (died 1160).

(6) Middle Ages

Saadiah of Fayûm (died 892), the most powerful writer against the Karaites, translated the Bible into Arabic and added notes. Besides commentaries on the Bible, Saadiah wrote a systematic treatise bringing revealed religion into harmony with Greek philosophy. He thus became the forerunner of Maimonides and the Catholic Schoolmen. Solomon ben Isaac, called Rashi (born 1040) wrote very popular explanations of the Talmud and the Bible. Abraham Ibn Ezra of Toledo (died 1168) had a good knowledge of Oriental languages and wrote learned commentaries on the Old Testament. He was the first to maintain that Isaias contains the work of two prophets. Moses Maimonides (died 1204), the greatest Jewish scholar of the Middle Ages, of whom his coreligionists said that "from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses", wrote his "Guide to the Perplexed", which was read by St. Thomas. He was a great admirer of Aristotle, who was to him the representative of natural knowledge as the Bible was of the supernatural. There were the two Kimchis, especially David (died 1235) of Narbonne, who was a celebrated grammarian, lexicographer, and commentator inclined to the literal sense. He was followed by Nachmanides of Catalonia (died 1270), a doctor of medicine who wrote commentaries of a cabbalistic tendency; Immanuel of Rome (born 1270); and the Karaites Aaron ben Joseph (1294), and Aaron ben Elias (fourteenth century).

(7) Modern

Isaac Abarbanel (born Lisbon, 1437; died Venice, 1508) was a statesman and scholar. None of his predecessors came so near the modern ideal of a commentator as he did. He prefixed general introductions to each book, and was the first Jew to make extensive use of Christian commentaries. Elias Levita (died 1549) and Azarias de Rossi (died 1577) have also to be mentioned. Moses Mendelssohn of Berlin (died 1786), a friend of Lessing, translated the Pentateuch into German. His commentaries (in hebrew) are close, learned, critical, and acute. He has had much influence in modernizing Jewish methods. Mendelssohn has been followed by Wessely, Jaroslaw, Homberg, Euchel, Friedlander, Hertz, Herxheimer, Philippson, etc., called "Biurists", or expositors. The modern liberal school among the Jews is represented by Munk, Luzzato, Zunz, Geiger, Fürst, etc. In past ages the Jews attributed both the Written and the Unwritten Torahs to Moses; some modern Jews seem disposed to deny that he had anything to do with either.

II. PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES

The history of Christian exegesis may be roughly divided into three periods: the Age of the Fathers, the Age of Catenæ and Scholia (seventh to sixteenth century), and the Age of Modern Commentaries (sixteenth to twentieth century). Most of the patristic commentaries are in the form of homilies, or discourses to the faithful, and range over the whole of Scripture. There are two schools of interpretation, that of Alexandria and that of Antioch.

(1) Alexandrian School

The chief writers of the Alexandrian School were Pantænus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Didymus the blind priest, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pierius. To these may be added St. Ambrose, who, in a moderate degree, adopted their system. Its chief characteristic was the allegorical method. This was doubtless, founded on passages in the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, but it received a strong impulse from the writings of Alexandrian Jews, especially of Philo. The great representative of this school was Origen (died 254). From his very earliest years Origen manifested such extraordinary marks of piety and genius that he was held in the very highest reverence by his father, himself a saint and martyr. Origen became the master of many great saints and scholars, one of the most celebrated being St. Gregory Thaumaturgus; he was known as the "Adamantine" on account of his incessant application to study, writing, lecturing, and works of piety. He frequently kept seven amanuenses actively employed; it was said he became the author of 6000 works (Epiphanius, Hær., lxiv, 63); according to St. Jerome, who reduced the number to 2000 (Contra. Rufin., ii, 22), he left more writings than any man could read in a lifetime (Ep. xxxiii, ad Paulam). Besides his great labours on the Hexapla he wrote scholia, homilies, and commentaries on the Old and the New Testament. In his scholia he gave short explanations of difficult passages after the manner of his contemporaries, the annotators of the Greek classics. Most of the scholia, in which he chiefly sought the literal sense, are unfortunately lost, but it is supposed that their substance is embodied in the writings of St. John Chrysostom and other Fathers. In his other works Origen pushed the allegorical interpretation to the utmost extreme. In spite of this, however, his writings were of great value, and with the exception of St. Augustine, no writer of ancient times had such influence. It is lamentable that this great man fell into serious error on the origin of souls, the eternity of hell, etc.

(2) Antiochene School

The writers of the Antiochene School disliked the allegorical method, and sought almost exclusively the literal, primary, or historical sense of Holy Scripture. The principal writers of this school were St. Lucian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicæa, Asterius, Arius the heresiarch, Diodorus of Antioch (Bishop of Tarsus), and his three great pupils, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore's brother Polychromius, and St. John Chrysostom. With these may be counted St. Ephraem on account of his preference for the literal sense. The great representatives of this school were Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John Chrysostom. Diodorus, who died Bishop of Tarsus (394), followed the literal to the exclusion of the mystical or allegorical sense. Theodore was born at Antioch, in 347, became Bishop of Mopsuestia, and died in the communion of the Church, 429. He was a powerful thinker, but an obscure and prolix writer. He felt intense dislike for the mystical sense, and explained the Scriptures in an extremely literal and almost rationalistic manner. His pupil, Nestorius, became a founder of heresy; the Nestorians translated his books into Syriac and regarded Theodore as their great "Doctor". This made Catholics suspicious of his writings, which were finally condemned after the famous controversy on The Three Chapters. Theodore's commentary on St. John's Gospel, in Syriac, has recently been published, with a Latin translation, by a Catholic scholar. Dr. Chabot. St. John Chrysostom, priest of Antioch, became Patriarch of Constantinople in 398. As an interpreter of Holy Scripture he stands in the very first rank of the Fathers. He left homilies on most of the books of the Old and the New Testament. There is nothing in the whole of antiquity to equal his writings on St. Matthew's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles. When St. Thomas Aquinas was asked by one of his brethren whether he would not like to be the owner of Paris, so that he could dispose of it to the King of France and with the proceeds promote the good works of his order, he answered that he would prefer to be the possessor of Chrysostom's "Super Matthæum". This reply may be taken as the true expression of the high admiration in which the writings of St. Chrysostom have ever been held in the Church. St. Isidore of Pelusium said of him that if the Apostle St. Paul could have used Attic speech he would have explained his own Epistles in the identical words of St. John Chrysostom.

(3) Intermediate School

The other Fathers combined what was best in both these systems, some learning more to the allegorical and some to the literal sense. The principal were Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrosiaster, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, and Pelagius. St. Jerome, perhaps the greatest Biblical scholar of ancient times, besides his famous translations of the Scripture, and other works, left many useful commentaries, some of great merit. In others he departed too much from the literal meaning of the text. In the hurry of composition he did not always sufficiently indicate when he was quoting from different authors. and this, according to Richard Simon, accounts for his apparent discrepancies.

III. MEDIEVAL COMMENTARIES

The medieval writers were content to draw from the rich treasures left them by their predecessors. Their commentaries consisted, for the most part, of passages from the Fathers, which they connected together as in a chain, catena (q. v.). We cannot give more than the names of the principal writers, with the century after each. Though they are not all known as catenists they may be regarded as such, for all practical purposes.

(1) Greek Catenists

Procopius of Gaza (sixth century) was one of the first to write a catena. He was followed by St. Maximus, Martyr (seventh), St. John Damascene (eighth), Olympiodorus (tenth), Œcumenius (tenth), Nicetas of Constantinople (eleventh), Theophylactus, Archbishop in Bulgaria (eleventh), Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth), and the writers of anonymous catenæ edited by Cramer and Cardinal Mai.

(2) Latin Catenists, Scholiasts, etc.

The principal Latin commentators of this period were the Venerable Bede, Walafrid Strabo, Anselm of Laon, Hugh of Saint-Cher, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Nicholas de Lyra. The Venerable Bede (seventh to eighth century), a good Greek and Hebrew scholar, wrote a useful commentary on most of the books of the Old and the New Testament. It is in reality a catena of passages from Greek and Latin Fathers judiciously selected and digested. Walafrid Strabo (ninth century), a Benedictine, wrote the "Glossa Ordinaria" on the entire Bible. It is a brief explanation of the literal and mystical sense, based on Rabanus Maurus and other Latin writers, and was one of the most popular works during the Middle Ages, being as well known as "The Sentences" of Peter Lombard. Anselm, Dean of Laon, and professor at Paris (twelfth century), wrote the "Glossa Interlinearis", so called because the explanation was inserted between the lines of the Vulgate. The Dominican cardinal, Hugh of Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Caro, thirteenth century), besides his famous "Concordance", composed a short commentary on the whole of the Scriptures, explaining the literal, allegorical, analogical, and moral sense of the text. His work was called "Postillæ", i. e. post illa (verba textus), because the explanation followed the words of the text. St. Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) left commentaries on Job, Psalms, Epistles of St. Paul, and was the author of the well-known "Catena Aurea" on the Gospels. This consists of quotations from over eighty Greek and Latin Fathers. He throws much light on the literal sense and is most happy in illustrating difficult points by parallel passages from other parts of the Bible. Nicholas de Lyra (thirteenth century), a converted Jew, joined the Franciscans in 1291, and brought to the service of the Church his great knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinical learning. He wrote short notes or "Postillæ" on the entire Bible, and set forth the literal meaning with great ability, especially of the books written in Hebrew. This work was most popular, and in frequent use during the late Middle Ages, and Luther was indebted to it for his display of learning. A great impulse was given to exegetical studies by the Council of Vienne which decreed, in 1311, that chairs of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Arabic should be established at Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca.

Besides the great writers already mentioned the following are some of the principal exegetes, many of them Benedictines, from patristic times till the Council of Trent: Cassiodorus (sixth century); St. Isidore of Seville (seventh); St. Julian of Toledo (seventh); Alcuin (eighth); Rabanus Maurus (ninth); Druthmar (ninth); Remigius of Auxerre (ninth); St. Bruno of Würzburg, a distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholar; St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians (eleventh); Gilbert of Poirée; St. Rupert (twelfth); Alexander of Hales (thirteenth); Albertus Magnus (thirteenth); Paul of Burgos (fourteenth to fifteenth); Alphonsus Tostatus of Avila (fifteenth); Ludolph of Saxony; and Dionysius the Carthusian, who wrote a pious commentary on the whole of the Bible; Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (fifteenth to sixteenth); Gagnæus (fifteenth to sixteenth). Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan (sixteenth) wrote in a scientific spirit, but have been justly blamed for some rash opinions.

IV. MODERN CATHOLIC COMMENTARIES

The influx of Greek scholars into Italy on the fall of Constantinople, the Christian and anti-Christian Renaissance, the invention of printing, the controversial excitement caused by the rise of Protestantism, and the publication of polyglot Bibles by Cardinal Ximenes and others, gave renewed interest to the study of the Bible among Catholic scholars. Controversy showed them the necessity of devoting more attention to the literal meaning of the text, according to the wise principle laid down by St. Thomas in the beginning of his "Summa Theologica".

It was then that the sons of St. Ignatius, who founded his order in 1534, stepped into the front rank to repel the attacks on the Church. The Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuits made it incumbent on their professors of Scripture to acquire a mastery of Greek, Hebrew, and other Oriental languages. Salmeron, one of the first companions of St. Ignatius, and the pope's theologian at the Council of Trent, was a distinguished Hebrew scholar and voluminous commentator. Bellarmine, one of the first Christians to write a Hebrew grammar, composed a valuable commentary on the Psalms, giving an exposition of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate texts. It was published as part of Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on the whole Bible. Cornelius a Lapide, S. J. (born 1566), was a native of the Low Countries, and was well versed in Greek and Hebrew. During forty years he devoted himself to teaching and to the composition of his great work, which has been highly praised by Protestants as well as Catholics. Maldonatus, a Spanish Jesuit, born 1584, wrote commentaries on Isaias, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles (Song of Solomon), and Ecclesiastes. His best work, however, is his Latin commentary on the Four Gospels, which is generally acknowledged to be one of the best ever written. When Maldonatus was teaching at the University of Paris the hall was filled with eager students before the lecture began, and he had frequently to speak in the open air. Great as was the merit of the work of Maldonatus, it was equalled by the commentary on the Epistles by Estius (born at Gorcum, Holland, 1542), a secular priest, and superior of the College at Douai. These two works are still of the greatest help to the student. Many other Jesuits were the authors of valuable exegetical works, e. g.: Francis Ribera of Castile (born 1514); Cardinal Toletus of Cordova (born 1532); Manuel Sa (died 1596); Bonfrère of Dinant (born 1573); Mariana of Talavera (born 1537); Alcazar of Seville (born 1554); Barradius "the Apostle of Portugal"; Sáhchez of Alcalá (died 1628); Serarius of Lorraine (died 1609); Lorinus of Avignon (born 1559); Tirinus of Antwerp (born 1580); Menochius of Pavia; Pereira of Valencia (died 1610); and Pineda of Seville.

The Jesuits were rivalled by Arias Montanus (died 1598), the editor of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible; Sixtus of Siena, O. P. (died 1569); John Wild (Ferus), O. S. F.; Dominic Soto, O. P. (died 1560); Masius (died 1573); Jansen of Ghent (died 1576); Génébrard of Cluny (died 1597); Agellius (died 1608); Luke of Bruges (died 1619); Calasius, O. S. F. (died 620); Malvenda, O. P. (died 1628); Jansen of Ypres; Simeon de Muis (died 1644); Jean Morin, Oratorian (died 1659); Isaac Le Maistre (de Sacy); John Sylveira, Carmelite (died 1687); Bossuet (died 1704); Richard Simon, Oratorian (died 1712); Calmet, Oratorian, who wrote a valuable dictionary of the Bible, of which there is an English translation, and a highly esteemed commentary on all the books of Scripture (died 1757); Louis de Carrières, Oratorian (died 1717); Piconio, Capuchin (died 1709); Lamy, Oratorian (died 1715); Guarin, O. S. B. (died 1729); Houbigant, Oratorian (died 1783); Smits, Recollect (1770); Le Long, Oratorian (died 1721); Brentano (died 1797). During the nineteenth century the following were a few of the Catholic writers on the Bible: Scholz, Hug, Jahn, Le Hir, Allioli, Mayer, van Essen, Glaire, Beelim Haneberg, Meignan, Reithmayr, Patrizi, Loch, Bisping (his commentary on the New Testament styled "excellent" by Vigouroux), Corluy, Fillion, Lesêtre, Trochon (Introductions and Comm. on Old and New Test., "La Sainte Bible", 27 vols.), Schegg, Bacuez, Kenrick, McEvilly, Arnauld, Schanz (a most valuable work, in German, on the Gospels), Fouard, Maas, Vigouroux (works of Introduction), Ward, McIntyre, etc. Catholics have also published important scientifical books. There is the great Latin "Cursus" on the whole of the Bible by the Jesuit Fathers, Cornely, Knabenbauer, and Hummelauer. The writings of Lagrange (Les Juges), Condamin (Isaïe), Calmes (Saint Jean), Van Hoonacker (Les Douze Petits Prophètes), etc., are all valuable works. For a list of modern Catholic publications on the Scripture, the reader may be referred to the "Revue biblique", edited by Lagrange (Jerusalem and Paris), and the "Biblische Zeitschrift', published by Herder (Freiburg im Breisgau). For further information concerning the principal Catholic commentators see respective articles.

V. NON-CATHOLIC COMMENTARIES

(1) In General

The commentaries of the first Reformers, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., are mostly controversial, and are now seldom quoted by scholars. Their immediate successors were too energetically engaged in polemics among themselves to devote much time to regular works of exegesis. The following wrote on Holy Scripture during the 17th and 18th centuries. Lutherans: Gerhard; Geier; Calov; S. Schmid; J. H. Michaelis; Lange. Calvinists: Drusius; Louis de Dieu (great Oriental scholar); Cappel; Bochart; Cocceius; Vitringa. Socinians: John Crell and Jonas Schlichting. Arminians: Hugo Grotius (a man of great erudition); Limbroch; John le Clerc (rationalistic). English Writers: Brian Walton (London Polyglot), John Lightfoot (Horæ Heb. et Talm.), both mines of learning; Pearson, etc., editors of "Critici Sacri" (compiled from the best Continental writers, Catholic and Protestant); Mayer; S. Clarke (brief judicious notes); Wells; Gill; John Wesley; Dodd; W. Lowth; R. Lowth; and the editors of the Reformer's Bible. During the nineteenth century: Priestly (1803); Burder (1809); D'Oyly and Mant (1820); A. Clarke (1826, learned); Boothroyd (1823, Hebrew scholar); Thomas Scott (1822, popular); Matthew Henry (1827, a practical comm. on Old and New Test.); Bloomfield (Greek Test., with Eng. notes, 1832, good for the time); Kuinoel (Philological Comm. on New Test., 1828); Oldshausen (1839); Haevernick (1845); Baumgarten (1859); Tholuck (1843); Trench (Parables, Sermon on the Mount, Miracles, N. T. Syn. — very useful); "The Speakers Commentary" (still valuable); Alford (Greek Test., with critical and exeg. comm., 1856, good); Franz Delitzsch (1870), Ebrard Hengstenberg (1869); Wordsworth (The Greek Test., with notes, 1877); Keil; Ellicott (Epp. of St. Paul, highly esteemed); Conybeare and Howson (St. Paul, containing much useful information); Lange, together with Schroeder, Fay, Cassel, Bacher, Zoeckler, Moll, etc. (Old and N. Test., 1864-78); Lewin (St. Paul, 1878); Beet; Cook; Gloag; Perowne; Bishop Lightfoot (Epp. of St. Paul); Westcott. There were many commentaries published at Cambridge, Oxford, London, etc. (see publishers' catalogues, and notices in "Expositor", "Expository Times", and "Journal of Theological Studies"). Other writers are Farrar, A. B. Davidson, Fausset, Plummer, Plumptre, Salmon, Swete, Bruce, Dods, Stanley, Driver, Kirkpatrick, Sanday, Green, Hovey, Robinson, Schaff, Briggs, Moore, Gould, etc. "The International Critical Commentary" is a work by many distinguished American and English scholars. There are also the Bible dictionaries of Kitto, Smith, and Hastings. Many of these works, especially the later ones, are valuable for their scientific method, though not of equal value for their views or conclusions. [See below (3) The best modern (non-C.) Commentaries in English.]

(2) Rationalistic Commentaries

The English deists, Lord Herbert of Cherbury (died 1648), Hobbes, Blount, Toland, Lord Shaftesbury (died 1713), Mandeville, Collins, Woolston (1731), Tindal, Morgan, Chubb, Lord Bolingbroke (died 1751), Annet, and David Hume (died 1776), while admitting the existence of God, rejected the supernatural, and made desperate attacks on different parts of the Old and the New Testament. They were ably refuted by such men as Newton, Cudworth, Boyle, Bentley, Lesley, Locke, Ibbot, Whiston, S. Clarke, Sherlock, Chandler, Gilbert West, George Lord Lytton, Waterland, Foster, Warburton, Leland, Law, Lardner, Watt, Butler. These replies were so effective that in England deism practically died with Hume. In the meantime, unfortunately, the opinions of the English rationalists were disseminated on the Continent by Voltaire and others. In Germany the ground was prepared by the philosophy of Christian Wolff and the writings of his disciple Semler. Great scandal was caused by the posthumous writings of Raimarus, which were published by Lessing between 1774-78 (The Fragments of Wolfenbüttel). Lessing pretended that he discovered the manuscript in the ducal library of Wolfenbüttel and that the author was unknown. According to the "Fragments", Moses, Christ, and the Apostles were impostors. Lessing was vigorously attacked, especially by Götze; but Lessing, instead of meeting his opponent's arguments, with great literary skill turned him to ridicule. The rationalists, however, soon realized that the Scriptures had too genuine a ring to be treated as the results of imposture. Eichhorn, in his "Introd. to the Old Test." (1789), maintained that the Scriptures were genuine productions, but that, as the Jews saw the intervention of God in the most ordinary natural occurrences, the miracles should be explained naturally, and he proceeded to show how. Paulus (1761-1850), following the lead of Eichhorn, applied to the Gospels the naturalistic method of explaining miracles. When Paulus was a boy, his father's mind became deranged, he constantly saw his deceased wife and other ministering angels, and he perceived miracles everywhere. After a time the young Paulus began to shake off this nightmare and amused himself by taking advantage of his father's weakness, and playing practical jokes upon him. He grew up with the most bitter dislike for everything supernatural, and his judgment became almost as warped as that of his father, but in the opposite direction. The Apostles and early Christians appeared to him to be people just like his worthy parent, and he thought that they distorted natural facts through the medium of their excited imaginations. This led him to give a naturalistic explanation of the Gospel miracles.

The common sense of the German rationalists soon perceived, however, that if the authenticity of the Sacred Books were admitted, with Eichhorn and Paulus, the naturalistic explanation of these two writers was quite as absurd as the impostor system of Raimarus. In order to do away with the supernatural it was necessary to get rid of the authenticity of the books; and to this the observations of Richard Simon and Astruc readily lent themselves. G. L Bauer, Heyne (died 1812), and Creuzer denied the authenticity of the greater portion of the Pentateuch and compared it to the mythology of the Greeks and Romans. The greatest advocate of such views was de Wette (1780-1849), a pupil of Paulus, of the hollowness of whose method he soon became convinced. In his "Introd. to the Old Test." (1806) he maintained that the miraculous narratives of the Old Testament were but popular legends, which, in passing from mouth to mouth, in the course of centuries, became transformed and transfused with the marvellous and the supernatural, and were finally committed to writing in perfectly good faith. Strauss (1808-74), in his "Das Leben Jesu" (1835) applied this mythical explanation to the Gospels. He showed most clearly, that if with Paulus the Gospels are allowed to be authentic, the attempt to explain the miracles naturally breaks down completely. Strauss rejected the authenticity and regarded the miraculous accounts in the Gospels as naive legends, the productions of the pious imaginations of the early generations of Christians. The views of Strauss were severely criticized by the Catholics, Kuhn, Mack, Hug, and Sepp, and by the Protestants Neander, Tholuck, Ullman, Lange, Ewald, Riggenbach, Weiss, and Keim. Baur especially, the founder of the Tübingen School, proved that Strauss ran counter to the most clearly established facts of early Christian history, and showed the folly of denying the historical existence of Christ and His transcendent personality. Even Strauss lost all confidence in his own system. Baur, unfortunately, originated a theory which was for a time in great vogue, but which was afterwards abandoned by the majority of critics. He held that the New Testament contains the writings of two antagonistic parties amongst the Apostles and early Christians. His principal followers were Zeller, Schwegler, Planck, Köslin, Ritsch, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Tobler, Keim, Hosten, some of whom, however, emancipated themselves from their master.

Besides the writers already mentioned, the following wrote in a rationalistic spirit: Ernesti (died 1781), Semler (1791), Berthold (1822), the Rosenmüllers, Crusius (1843), Bertheau, De Wette, Hupfeld, Ewald, Thenius, Fritzsche, Justi, Gesenius (died 1842), Longerke, Bleek, Bunsen (1860), Umbreit, Kleinert, Knobel, Nicolas, Hirzel, Kuenen, J. C. K. von Hoffmann, Hitzig (died 1875), Schulz (1869), B. Weiss, Renan, Tuch, H. A. W. Meyer (and his continuators Huther, Luneman, Dusterdieck, Brückner, etc.), Wellhausen, Wieseler, Jülicher, Beyschlag, H. Holtzmann, and his collaborators Schmiedel, von Soden, etc. Holtzmann, while practically admitting the authenticity of the Gospels, especially of St. Mark, endeavours to explain away the miracles. He approaches the subject with his mind made up that miracles do not happen, and he tries to get rid of them by cleverly attempting to show that they are merely echoes of Old Testament miracle stories. In this he is quite as unsuccessful as Paulus, who saw in them only the counterpart of the distorted imaginings of his unfortunate father. Holtzmann is severely taken to task by several writers in the "International Critical Commentary". The attempt to get rid of the supernatural has completely failed; but the activity of so many acute minds has thrown great light on the language and literature of the Bible.

(3) The Best Modern (non-Catholic) Commentaries in English

There is a very useful list of such commentaries in "The Expository Times" (vol. XIV, Jan. and Feb., 1903, 151, 203), by Henry Bond, Librarian of Woolwich. It is the result of opinions which he obtained from many of the most renowned English scholars. The number of votes given for the different works is printed after each name; but no name appears on the list unless it received more than five votes. The editor, Dr. James Hastings, added judicious notes and observations (270, 358). The following list is based, in great measure, on these papers, supplemented from other sources. The works are distinguished as follows: (e) excellent; (g) good; (f) fair. Some of those marked (g) and (f) were excellent for the time in which they were published; and they may still be regarded as serviceable. The characterization of each is, of course, from the non-Catholic point of view.

Old Testament

Introduction: Driver, "Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test.", written from a "Higher Critical" standpoint; on the other side is the powerful book by Orr, "The Problem of the Old Testament" (London, 1906). Both contain ample literatures. — Genesis: Skinner, in "International Critical Commentary"; Spurrell (g) (notes on the text); Delitzsch (g), and Dillmann (g); Dods in "Handbook Series". — Exodus: There is, at present, no first-class commentary on Exod.; Kennedy in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Chadwick (g). — Leviticus: Stenning in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Kalish (g) the best in English; Driver and White (f) in Polychrome Bible; Ginsburg (London); Kellog (f) (London). — Numbers: Buchanan Gray (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Kittell, "History of the Hebrews"; there is little else to refer to, as the others are out of date. — Deuteronomy: Driver (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Harper (g). — Josue: Smith in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Maclear (f). — Judges: Moore (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Watson (f); Lias (f). — Ruth: Briggs in "Int. Crit. Comm.". — Samuel: Smith (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Kirkpatrick (e). — Kings: Brown in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Lumby, an excellent popular work. — Chronicles (Paralip.): Curtis in "Int. Crit. Comm."; also his article in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible"; Bennett (g); Barnes (g). — Esdras and Nehemias: Batten in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Ryle's is an excellent popular commentary; Adeney (f). — Esther: Paton in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Lange (f); Adeney (f). — Job: There appears to be no first-rate students' commentary on Job; Davidson's is an excellent popular book; earlier works of Driver, Gibson, and Cox are fair. — Psalms: Briggs (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Delitzsch (e); Kirkpatrick (e); Perowne (g); Cheyne (f). — Proverbs: Toy (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm". — Ecclesiastes: Barton (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Strong (e); Tyler (g); Plumptre, a good popular comm.; Delitzsch (f); Wright (f). — Song of Solomon (Canticles): Briggs in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Harper, a valuable work; Ginsburg (f). — Isaias: Driver and Gray in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Smith (e); Delitzsch (g); Cheyne (f). — Jeremias: Kirkpatrick in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Streane an excellent popular work; that of Ball and Bennett is good; Orelli (f). — Lamentations: Briggs in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Streane and Adeney, good popular books. — Ezechiel: Cooke and Burney in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Cobern (g); Toy (f) in "Polychrome Bible"; Davidson (e), an excellent popular commentary. — Daniel: Peters in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Kennedy (g); Bevan (g); Driver has a first-class popular commentary. — Amos and Osee: Harper (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; three excellent popular works are by Smith, Driver, and Cheyne. — Other Minor Prophets: Smith, etc., in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Smith (e); Davidson (g), and Perowne (g); Orelli (f); Dods, "Post-exilian Prophets", in Handbook Series; Low (g); Zechariah (g); Pusey (f).

New Testament

Introduction: Salmon, "Introd. to the New Test.", an excellent book; Westcott, "Canon of the New Test." (7th ed., 1896); Lightfoot. "Essays on Supernatural Religion" (1893), a powerful reply to the attacks of an anonymous rationalist on the New Test.; also his "Dissertations on the Apostolic Age", and Biblical Essays; Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller", "Was Christ born in Bethlehem?", etc.; Harnack, "St. Luke the Physician", defends the authenticity of the Gospel and Acts; Hawkins, "Horæ Synopticæ". Text: "Variorum New Test."; Weymouth, "The Resultant Greek Test.", showing the Greek readings of eleven great editions; Westcott and Hort, "The New Test. in Greek", vol. II, Introd.; Salmon, "Some Criticism of the Text" (1897), a criticism of Westcott and Hort; "The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Test." (Oxford, 1897); Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", an invaluable book; also his "Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Test." (1901); Hammond, "Outlines of Text. Crit. applied to N. Test." (Oxford); Nestle (also tr.), and the exhaustive work by von Soden (both in German). — St. Matthew's Gospel: Allen (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Meyer (e), one of the older works, but still used, Dr. Hastings says, by some of the finest scholars, who keep it always near at hand; Bruce (g) in "Exp. Greek Test."; Alford (f); Morison (g); Carr (g); "Camb. Greek Test." — St. Mark: Swete (e); Gould (g) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Hort (g) Lindsay, an excellent little book. — St. Luke: Plummer (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Wright (g), "St. Luke's Gospel in Greek"; Godet (g); Farrar (g). — St. John: Westcott (e) in "Speaker's Comm.", the most highly praised of all the commentaries on St. John's Gospel; Bernard in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Godet (g); Milligan and Moulton (g); Dods in "Exp. Gr. Test." (g); Reith (g).

Acts: Knowling (e), "Exp. Gr. Test.", one of the best commentaries on Acts in any language; Turner in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Rendall (g); Lumby (g); Rackham (g); Page (g). — Romans: Sanday and Headlam (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm.", one of the best commentaries in existence on Romans, rendering all other English commentaries superfluous. — I Corinthians: Robertson and Walker in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Evans (g) in "Speaker's Comm."; Findlay (g) in "Exp. Greek Test."; Edwards (g); Ellicott (g); Godet (f); Massie in Century Bible (g). — II Corinthians: Meyer (g), in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Bernard (g) in "Exp. Greek Test."; Waite (g) in "Speaker's Commentary". — Galatians: Lightfoot (e) (London, 1874), a masterpiece of exegesis; Burton in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Rendall (g) in "Exp. Greek. Test."; ELlicott (g); Ramsay (g); Sanday (g). — Ephesians: Abbott (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm." (Edinburgh); Armitage Robinson (e); Macpherson (g); Ellicott (g); Salmond (g) in" Exp. Greek Test."; Alford (f) (London); Meyer (f); Miller, good but daring. — Philippians and Philemon: Lightfoot (e), another masterpiece; Vincent (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Ellicott (f); Moule (g), "Philippian Studies", and in "Camb. Greek Test." — Colossians: Lightfoot (e), another great work; Abbott (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm." (in the same volume as Ephesians); Peake (g) in "Exp. Greek Test."; Maclaren (g); Ellicott (f); Findlay (f) in "Pulpit Comm."; Moule (g), "Colossian Studies" — Thessalonians: Milligan (e), highly esteemed; Frame in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Ellicott (e); Meyer and Alford (f); Findlay (e); Denney (g); Mason (g). — Pastoral Epistles: Lock in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Ellicott (e); Bernard (g) in "Camb. Greek Test."; Meyer (f); Lilley (g) in "Handbook Series"; to these must be added the valuable book by James, "The Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles" (1906). — Hebrews: Westcott (e), on a level with Lightfoot, the greatest work on Hebrews; Nairne in "Int. Crit. Comm." Davidson (g); Farrar (g). — Ep. of St. James: Mayor (e); Ropes in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Alford and Meyer (f); Plumptre (g). — Epp. of St. Peter and St. Jude: Bigg (e) in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Hort (e), a splendid fragment; Masterman (g), "I Peter "; Salmon (g), "I Peter" in "Popular Commentary". — Epp. of St. John: Westcott (e), another of his great works; Haupt (g) and Huther (g); Watson (g), "I John". — Revelation (Apocalypse): Swete (e), the greatest commentary on the Apocalypse; Charles in "Int. Crit. Comm."; Mulligan (e); Simeox (g); Hort (e).

Jewish Commentators. ABRAHAMS, Short History of Jewish Literature (London, 1906); GRAETZ, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1891-98); OESTERLEY AND BOX, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London, 1907); BACHER, Bible Exegesis in Jewish Encyc.; SCHECHTER, Talmud in Hist. Dict. Bib.; FARRAR, History of Interpretation (London, 1886); VON SCHÜRER, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1902). Patristic Commentaries. — BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1902-3); IDEM, Patroloqie (1894: Fr. tr., Paris, 1899); TURNER in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, extra vol.; EHRHARD, Altchr. Litteratur (Freiburg, 1900). Later Commentators. — CALMET, Dict. Bib., I; DIXON, General Introd. to the S. Scriptures (Dublin, 1872), II; GIGOT, General introd. to the Holy Scriptures (New York, 1900); RICHARD SIMON, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du N. T. (Rotterdam. 1689); HORNE, Introd. to the Scriptures (London, 1834), II; HURTER, Nomenclator; VIGOUROUX, Manuel biblique (Paris, 1882); IDEM, Les Livres saints et la critique rationaliste (Paris, 1886), II.

C. AHERNE

Philippe de Commines

(Also Comines or Comynes).

French historian and statesman, b. in Flanders probably before 1447; d. at the Château d'Argenton, France, about 1511. He was the son of Colard van den Clyte, chief bailiff of Flanders for the Duke of Burgundy, and of Marguerite d'Armuyden. His family owned the signiory of Commines on the Lys, and some of his ancestors had been aldermen of Ypres. He was brought up as a knight, spoke Flemish and French, but complains that he had never learned Latin–in the course of his travels he had learned Italian. In 1464 Commines was presented at the court of the Duke of Burgundy in Lille and became squire to the duke's son, the Count of Charolais, afterwards Charles the Bold. From 1464 to 1472 he was in the service of Charles, took part in his expeditions, and in 1465 was present at the battle of Monthéry. After the death of Philip the Good he was made chamberlain to the new Duke of Burgundy (1467). During the interview held at Péronne (1468) Commines was taken into Charles the Bold's confidence and then turned to Louis XI whom he secretly informed of his master's intentions. He nevertheless remained in the service of Charles who entrusted him with various missions to the governor of Calais (1470), to Brittany, and to Spain (1471). Nevertheless, on 8 August, 1472, he suddenly abandoned Charles the Bold during the duke's expedition in Normandy and went to Ponts-de-Cé to join Louis XI. The latter loaded him with favours and estates, and in 1473 arranged his marriage with Hèléne de Chambes, a wealthy heiress whose dowry was the seigniory of Argenton in Poitou. Commines now became one of the king's confidants and chief diplomatic agents.

However, after the death of Charles the Bold, the frankness with which Commines urged moderation upon the king aroused passing disfavour, but in 1478 Louis XI appointed him to conduct some difficult negotiations with the princes of Italy. After the conspiracy of the Pazzi he saved the power of the Medici, allies of France, who were threatened by the pope and the dukes of Milan; in 1479 he protected the young Duke of Savoy against Lodovico il Moro, and in 1481 succeeded in maintining French influence in Savoy. Upon the death of Louis XI, however, in 1483, at which event he was present, Commines permitted himself, however, to be drawn into the faction of the Duke of Orleans and conspired against the regent, Anne of Beaujeu. In 1487 he was arrested, confined at Loches in one of the iron cages used by Louis XI, and afterwards banished by Parliament to his own estates; he was also deprived of his principality of Talmont which was reclaimed by the La Trémoille family. In 1491 he returned to court and, although opposed to the expedition of Charles VIII into Italy, he nevertheless accompanied it and was sent to Venice, where he was utterly powerless to prevent the intrigues that culminated in the league against Charles VIII (1495). After the battle of Fornovo, he returned to Venice and Milan, where he was totally unsuccessful.

On the accession of Louis XII in 1498, Commines, for some unknown reason, lost caste at court and only reappeared there in 1505, thanks to the influence of Anne of Brittany. His "Mémoires" give but meagre information as to himself and leave many points in doubt; even the exact dates of his birth and death are uncertain, and but little is known of the part he played at Péronne, of his defection in 1472, his retirement at the accession of Louis XII, and of other matters. The "Mémoires" constitute a political history of Europe from 1464 to 1498 and, according to the preface, are material intended exclusively for the use of Angelo Cato, Archbishop of Vienne, who was to write a Latin history of Louis XI. The first part of the work, dealing with the period between 1464 and 1483, was prepared between 1489 and 1491, that containing the account of the reign of Charles VIII being completed in 1498. Commines is rather analytic than graphic, devotes himself more to ascertaining the causes of events than to describing the events themselves; his language seems inferior to his thought and his style is abrupt and periphrastic. The thought bears the impress of the realistic politics of the Renaissance, but the manner of expression is still medieval. The work has been preserved in manuscript and in sixteenth-century editions, the first edition being that of Galliot du Pré (Paris, 1524, fol.). A manuscript, written about 1530, and recovered by de Mandrot, is the only one containing the complete text. The chief editions are those of Mlle Dupont in the publications of the Societé de l'Histoire de France (Paris, 1847, 3 vols.), Chantelauze (Paris, 1881), and de Mandrot (Paris, 1903, 2 vols). Commines' tomb, on which is a kneeling figure of him and also one of his wife, Hélène de Chambes, is preserved in the Louvre.

Introduction to the editions of Mlle Dupont and de Maudrot; Kervyn de Lettenhove, Lettres et négotiations de Philippe de Commines (Brussels, 1874); Fierville, Documents inedits sur Philippe de Commines (Paris, 1881); Chantelauze, Philippe de Commynes in the Correspondant (1880-81); Scoble, tr. in Bohn's Library of French Memoirs (London, 1865), I, II. Commines' tomb is reproduced in Petit de Julleville, Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1896), II, 330.

Louis BrÉhier

Commissariat of the Holy Land

In the Order of Friars Minor the territory or district assigned to a commissary, whose duty it is to collect alms for the maintenance of the Holy Places in Palestine committed to the care of the Friars Minor; also, in a more restricted sense, the convent where the aforesaid commissary resides. The commissary, who is always a member of the order, receives his appointment by letters patent from the minister general, to whom he is bound to transmit every year a detailed account of the alms received. These aims may not, under any circumstances, without express permission of the Holy See, be applied to other purposes, however pious and meritorious, under grave ecclesiastical penalties. The alms taken up by the bishops at the annual collections for the Holy Land are conveyed to the custos in Jerusalem through the commissary in whose district the dioceses of the bishops are situated. There are at present forty commissariats throughout the Christian world. The most ancient is that of Naples, founded in 1333, when Robert of Anjou redeemed the Holy Places from the Sultan of Egypt. In English-speaking countries there are seven — three in the united States, one in Canada, one in Great Britain, one in Ireland, and one in Australia. The Commissariat of the United States was founded in 1882, and the commissary resides in the new convent of Mount St. Sepulchre, Washington, D. C. In 1902, commissariats were erected in California and at St. Louis.

Conspectus Omnium Missionum Ord. FF. Minorum exhibitus Capitulo Gererali Romœ habito die 30 Maii, 1903 (Rome, 1903); Regula et Constitutiones Generales Fratr. Minorum (Rome, 1897); several Bulls and Briefs issued at different periods by the Holy See, of which the following are the principal SIXTUS V, Nostri pastoralis (13 Dec., 1589); PAUL V. Cœlestis Regis (22 Jan., 1618); URBAN VIII, Alias a felicis (18 June, 1634) in Bull. Rom., XV, 320 sqq.; BENEDICT XIV, Emanarunt nuper (20 Aug., 1743) in Bullar. Benedict. XIV (Prato, 1845), I, 313; Pius VI, Inter cœtera (31 July, 1778) in Bull. Rom. Cont. (Turin), VI, pt. I 505; LEO XIII, Salvatoris (26 Dec., 1887). See also S. C. S. Officii (28 June, 1876); S. C. Prop. Fide (20 Feb., 1891) in Collectanea S. C. Prop., n. 1632, 1638.

GREGORY CLEARY.

Commissary Apostolic

(Lat. Commissarius Apostolicus)

A commissary Apostolic is one who has received power from a Legitimate superior authority to pass judgment in a certain cause or to take informations concerning it. When such a delegate has been appointed by the pope, he is called a commissary Apostolic. The custom of appointing such commissaries by the Holy See is a very ancient one. A noteworthy instance is the commission issued to St. Cryil of Alexandria by Pope Celestine I, in the early part of the fifth Century, by which that holy patriarch was empowered to judge Nestorius in the pope's name. English history furnishes, among other instances, that of the commission which constituted Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio papal representatives for the judicial hearing of the divorce case of Henry VIII. Sometimes Apostolic commissions are constituted permanently by the Holy See. Such are the various Roman congregations presided over by the cardinals. The full extent of the authority of commissaries Apostolic must be learnt from the diploma of their appointment. The usual powers which they possess, however, are defined in the common law of the Church. Commissaries are empowered not only for judicial but also for executive purposes. When a papal commission mentions explicitly certain persons and certain things as subject to the authority of a commissary, and then adds in general that "other persons and other things" (quidam alii et res aliœ) are also included, it is understood that the latter phrase refers only to persons and things of equal or lower importance than those that are expressly named, and under no circumstances can the commissary's power extend to what is higher or more dignified (Cap. xv, de rescript.). If a bishop be appointed commissary Apostolic in matters that already belong to his ordinary jurisdiction, he does not thereby receive a delegated jurisdiction superadded to that which he already possessed; such an Apostolic commission is said to excite, not to alter, the prelate's ordinary jurisdiction.

As a commissary Apostolic is a delegate of the Holy See, an appeal may be made to the pope against his judgments or administrative acts. When several commissaries have been appointed for the same case, they are to act together as one; but if, owing to death or any other cause, one or other of the commissaries should be hindered from acting, the remaining members have full power to execute their commission. In case the commissaries be two in number and they disagree in the judgment to be given, the matter must be decided by the Holy See. A commissary Apostolic has the power to subdelegate another person for the cause committed to him, unless it has been expressly stated in his diploma that, owing to the importance of the matter at issue, he is to exercise jurisdiction personally. By the plenitude of his power, the pope can constitute a layman commissary Apostolic for ecclesiastical affairs, but according to the common law only prelates or clerics of the higher orders should receive such a commission (Lib. Sext., c. II, de rescr., 1, 3). The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. xvi, de Ref.) prescribes that each bishop should transmit to the Holy See the names of four persons capable of receiving such delegation for his diocese. It has consequently become customary for the pope to choose commissaries Apostolic from the locality where they are to investigate or pass judgment or execute a mandate.

HUMPHREY, Urbs a Orbis (London, 1899); ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon. (Paris, 1901), I; PIGNATELLI, Consult. Canon. (Venice, 1894), IX.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Ecclesiastical Commissions

Ecclesiastical Commissions are bodies of ecclesiastics juridically established and to whom are committed certain specified functions or charges. They are:

I. Pontifical commissions are special committees of cardinals created by the pope for some particular purpose, e. g. for the proper interpretation and defence of Sacred Scripture (see BIBLICAL COMMISSION), for historical studies (see ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY), for the codification of the canon law (see LAW), for the supervision, correction, etc. of the liturgical books of the Roman Church, e. g. the Breviary, Missal, Pontifical, Ritual, etc. (see BREVIARY; LITURGY), for the restoration and perfection of ecclesiastical music (see GREGORIAN CHANT), for the reunion of dissenting churches (see EASTERN CHURCH), for the preservation of the Faith (see ITALY; ROME).

II. Prelatitial commissions are composed of Roman prelates, secretaries, consultors, etc., and may be presided over by a cardinal. Such, e. g., are the Commission of Sacred Archæology (see ARCHÆOLOGY), for the preservation and illustration of the Christian antiquities of Rome, the commission for the administration of Peter's-pence (q.v.), and the Palatine Commission (established by Leo XIII) for the settlement of controversies or lawsuits between the personnel of the Vatican or other papal residences. Most of these commissions, however, are attached to the Roman Congregations, as special departments or sections, and are described in the article CONGREGATIONS, ROMAN, e. g. the Liturgical Commission attached to the Congregation of Rites; the commissions for the examination of episcopal reports, for the revision and correction of the liturgical books of the Eastern Church (q. v.), and for the examination of religious institutes in Propaganda territory, all three attached to the Congregation of Propaganda; for the examination of new religious institutes attached to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars; for the selection of bishops in Italy (now suppressed and its attributions vested in the Congregation of the Inquisition).

III. The diocesan commissions provided for by general ecclesiastical law are four: the commission for seminaries (in two sections for spiritual and temporal concerns, respectively), according to the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. xviii, De ref.), for which see SEMINARY, ECCLESIASTICAL; the commission of examiners of the clergy (see EXAMINERS, SYNODAL), to aid in the control of all competition for vacant parochial benefices; the commission on sacred music (Motu proprio of Pius X, 22 Nov., 1903) for the improvement of the character and execution of ecclesiastical music in the churches; a vigilance committee (Consilium a vigilantia) for the repression of modernism (Pius X, "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", 8 Sept., 1907). In many dioceses of England there exist diocesan school commissions or associations. There exists also in England (since 1853) for each diocese a commission of investigation for criminal and disciplinary causes of ecclesiastics (Taunton, 210-213); a similar commission for the dioceses of the United States, established by Propaganda in 1878, was abrogated in 1884 in favour of a new form of procedure, detailed in the Instruction of that year, "Cum Magnopere". For Ireland see "Acta et Decreta", by the Synod of Maynooth (1900), p. 75; and for Scotland, Taunton, op. cit., 214-20. The scope, authority, and attributions of these bodies are described either in the pontifical documents that create them, or in the legislation pertaining to the Roman congregations, or in the common ecclesiastical law and its authoritative interpretations.

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris 1899); BAUMGARTEN, Der Papst, die Regierung und Verwaltung der heiligen Kirche in Rom (Munich, 1904); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 209-22.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN.

Commodianus

A Christian poet, the date of whose birth is uncertain, but generally placed at about the middle of the third century, or between the end of Diocletian's persecution and the issuing of the edict of Maxentius (305-11). It has lately been asserted, however, that Commodianus lived under Julian or even in the middle of the fifth century. He is not known outside of his own writings except through a notice by Gennadius, "De Viris Illustribus" (ch. xv), and the condemnation of Pseudo-Gelasius, who prohibits the reading of his books ("De Libris recipiendis et non recipiendis", in Migne, P. L., LIX, 163) Gennadius seems to draw his information chiefly from the works themselves, and claims that Commodianus imitated Tertullian, Lactantius, and Papias. From two passages in his manuscripts it was gleaned that Commodianus came from Gaza in Palestine and had been invested with the episcopal dignity, but the first of these passages has a very uncertain meaning, and the second has been attributed to the mistake of a copyist. Commodianus declares that he is not a "doctor", which has led to the belief that he was a layman. He styles himself "mendicant of Christ", mendicus Christi, but that could also mean "one who implores Christ" or "one who begs for Christ". What is certain, however, is that, after various religious experiences, such as associating with pagans and practising the occult sciences, and probably conforming to the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, he adopted Christianity, having been converted by reading the Bible.

His works are a collection of 'Instructions" and a "Carmen apologeticum". The former consists of eighty acrostic, or abecedarian, essays, divided into two books. The plan of this work and the Biblical quotations introduced therein reveal the influence of St. Cyprian's "Testimonia". The first book is against the Jews and pagans, the second being addressed to different categories of the faithful: catechumens, baptized Christians, penitents, matrones, clerks, priests, and bishops. In parts its tone is decidedly satirical. The author is manifestly engrossed with ethics, and recommends alms-deeds above all else. The "Carmen apologeticum" has a misleading title, thanks to Pitra, its first editor (1852). It may be divided into four parts: a preamble (1-88); a résumé of the doctrine on God and Christ (89-578); a demonstration of the necessity of faith for salvation (379-790); and a description of the end of the world (791-1060). It is principally this picture that has made the name of Commodianus famous. According to it the Christians are a prey to a seventh persecution — the number is symbolical and indicates the last persecution. The Goths surprise and destroy Rome. Suddenly Nero, the Antichrist of the West, reappears, recaptures Rome from the Goths, associates himself with two Cæsars and maltreats the Christians for three and a half years. Then a second Antichrist, the man from Persia, comes from the East, conquers Nero, burns Rome, establishes himself in Judea, and works wonders. But God, with an army of the blessed. advances from beyond Persia in a triumphal march; Antichrist is overcome, and Christ and His saints settle in Jerusalem. To learn what follows we must consult the "Instructions" (II, 1-4). First of all the elect rise from the dead and for 1000 years lead lives of pleasure and happiness. At the end of that time the world is destroyed by fire, Christ appears, and all the dead arise for the Last Judgment, which leads either to the joys of Paradise or the pains of Hell.

The sources of Commodianus's information were the Bible — principally the Apocalypse, the Prophets, and the Fourth Book of Esdras — the Sibylline oracles, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and Lactantius. From Terence, Lucretius, Horace, Cicero, and most of all from Virgil, he borrows modes of expression. His theology is not reliable; besides Millenarianism, he seems to profess Monarchianism and Patripassianism, two heresies in regard to the Trinity. His language is not only crude, but incorrect, and it would be a mistake to seek in Commodianus the origin of versification based on accent. Although unacquainted with prosody, he tries to write in dactylic hexameter, and succeeds in only 63 out of more than 2000 verses. However, his shortcomings are somewhat atoned for by his use of parallelism, rhyme, and the acrostic, and the regular division of his verses; moreover, in spite of its defects, his work is decidedly energetic. He has well-defined formulæ, he conjures up magnificent pictures, and among the many artists and writers who have attempted a portrayal of the end of the world, Commodianus occupies a prominent place. His works have been edited by Ludwig (Leipzig, 1877-78) and by Dombart (Vienna, 1877, in "Corpus scriptorum eccles. latinorum", XV). The poem against Marcio, attributed by some critics to Commodianus, is the work of an imitator.

SCHANZ, Geschichte der römischen Literatur in the Handbuch der klassischen, Altertumswissenschaft of VON MÜLLER (Munich, 1905), VIII, pt. III, 427-36; MONCEAUX, Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne (Paris, 1905), III, 451-89; BREWER, Kommodian von Gaza, ein arelatensischer Laiendichter aus der Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1906) — the thesis implied in this title is very uncertain, see Revue critique d'histoire et de littérature (Paris, 1907), II, 199.

PAUL LEJAY.

Commodus

(Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus).

Roman Emperor, born 161; died at Rome, 31 December, 192. He was the son of Marcus Aurelius and Anna Faustina, and was the first among the Roman emperors to enjoy the distinction of being born in the purple.

His reign, 180-193, was the turning-point in the greatness of Rome. Some historians have attempted to exonerate Commodus from the charge of innate depravity and to attribute the failure of his career to weakness of character and vicious associates. It is, however, undeniable that a condition, which resulted in the slow but inevitable destruction of the Roman power, was brought about by the lack of capacity and evil life of Commodus, coupled with the overcentralization in Roman administration by which, since the time of Augustus, the most absolute power in the State and religious affairs had been gradually vested in the person of the emperor.

Every stage in the career of Commodus was marked by greed and suspicion, producing, as might be expected in those times, wholesale confiscation and numerous murders. One result of his cruel policy was to divert attention for a time from the Christians and to lead to a partial cessation of persecution. No edicts were issued against the Christians who, though persecuted by the proconsuls in some provinces, enjoyed a period of respite and comparative immunity from pursuit. There were many Christians at the court of Commodus and in the person of Marcia, the concubine or morganatic wife of the emperor, they had a powerful advocate through whose kind offices on one occasion many Christian prisoners were released from the mines in Sardinia. Commodus was murdered by strangling, one of the conspirators being Marcia. There is no evidence that the Christians were in any way connected with his death.

The works of Dio Cassius, Herodian, Aurelius Victor, and Eutropius, and the Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ are the principal pagan sources. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Eusebius are the principal Christian sources. The Roman histories of Gibbon, Merivale, Duruy, and Schiller should also be consulted.

Patrick J. Healy

Brethren of the Common Life

A community founded by Geert De Groote, of rich burgher stock, born at Deventer in Gelderland in 1340; died 1384. Having read at Cologne, at the Sorbonne, and at Prague, he took orders and obtained preferment -- a canon's stall at Utrecht and another at Aachen. His relations with the German Gottesfreunde and the writings of Ruysbroek, who later became his friend, gradually inclined him to mysticism, and on recovering from an illness in 1373 he resigned his prebends, bestowed his goods on the Carthusians of Arnheim, and lived in solitude for seven years. Then, feeling himself constrained to go forth and preach, he went from place to place calling men to repentance, proclaiming the beauty of Divine love, and bewailing the relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline and the degradation of the clergy. The effect of his sermons was marvellous; thousands hung on his lips. "The towns", says Moll, "were filled with devotees; you might know them by their silence, their ecstasies during Mass, their mean attire, their eyes, flaming or full of sweetness." A little band of these attached themselves to Groote and became his fellow-workers, thus becoming the first "Brethren of the Common Life". The reformer, of course, was opposed by the clerks whose evil lives he denounced, but the cry of heresy was raised in vain against one who was no less zealous for purity of faith than for purity of morals. The best of the secular clergy enrolled themselves in his brotherhood, which in due course was approved by the Holy See. Groote, however, did not live long enough to perfect the work he had begun. He died in 1384, and was succeeded by Florence Radewyns, who two years later founded the famous monastery of Windesheim which was thenceforth the centre of the new association.

The Confraternity of the Common Life resembled in several respects the Beghard and Beguine communities which had flourished two centuries earlier and were then decadent. The members took no vows, neither asked nor received alms; their first aim was to cultivate the interior life, and they worked for their daily bread. The houses of the brothers and sisters alike occupied themselves exclusively with literature and education, and priests also with preaching. When Groote began, learning in the Netherlands was as rare as virtue; the University of Louvain had not yet been founded, and the fame of the schools of Liège was only a memory. Save for a clerk here and there who had studied at Paris or Cologne, there were no scholars in the land; even amongst the higher clergy there were many who were ignorant of Latin, and the burgher was quite content if when his children left school they were able to read and write. Groote determined to change all this, and his disciples accomplished much. Through their unflagging toil in the scriptorium and afterwards at the press they were able to multiply their spiritual writings and to scatter them broadcast throughout the land, instinct with the spirit of the "Imitation". Amongst them are to be found the choicest flowers of fifteenth-century Flemish prose. The Brethren spared no pains to obtain good masters, if necessary from foreign parts, for their schools, which became centres of spiritual and intellectual life; amongst those whom they trained or who were associated with them were men like Thomas à Kempis, Dierick Maertens, Gabriel Biel, and the Dutch Pope Adrian VI.

Before the fifteenth century closed, the Brethren of the Common Life had studded all Germany and the Netherlands with schools in which the teaching was given for the love of God alone. Gradually the course, at first elementary, embraced the humanities, philosophy, and theology. The religious orders looked askance at these Brethren, who were neither monks nor friars, but the Brethren found protectors in Popes Eugenius IV, Pius II, and Sixtus IV. The great Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had been their pupil and became their stanch protector and benefactor. He was likewise the patron of Rudolph Agricola, who in his youth at Zwolle had sat at the feet of Thomas à Kempis; and so the Brethren of the Common Life, through Cusa and Agricola, influenced Erasmus and other adepts in the New Learning. More than half of the crowded schools -- in 1500 Deventer counted over two thousand students -- were swept away in the religious troubles of the sixteenth century. Others languished until the French Revolution, while the rise of universities, the creation of diocesan seminaries, and the competition of new teaching orders gradually extinguished the schools that regarded Deventer and Windesheim as their parent establishments. A life of De Groote is to be found among the works of Thomas à Kempis.

DELPRAT, Over de Broederschap van Groot (Utrecht, 1830); KETTLEWELL, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common Life (London, 1882).

ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH

Philosophy of Common Sense

The term common sense designates (1) a special faculty, the sensus communis of the Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy; (2) the sum of original principles found in all normal minds; (3) the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles (recta ratio, good sense). It is the second of these meanings that is implied in the philosophy of common sense -- a meaning well expressed by Fenelon when he identifies common sense with "those general ideas or notions which I can neither contradict nor examine, but according to which I examine and decide on everything; so that I smile rather than answer whenever anything is proposed to me that obviously runs counter to those unchangeable ideas" (De l'existence de Dieu, p. XXII, c. ii). The philosophy of common sense sometimes called Scottish philosophy from the nationality of its exponents (though not all Scottish philosophers were adherents of the Common Sense School), represents one phase of the reaction against the idealism of Berkeley and Hume which in Germany was represented by Kant. The doctrine of ideas, which Locke had adopted from Descartes, had been made use of by Berkeley as the foundation of his theory of pure idealism, which resolved the external world into ideas, without external reality, but directly impressed on the mind by Divine power. Hume, on the other hand, had contended that there was no ground for assuming the existence of any mental substance as the subjective recipient of impressions and ideas, all that we know of mind being a succession of states produced by experience. Thus, between the two, both subject and object disappeared, and philosophy ended in mere scepticism.

Thomas Reid (1710-1796), whose dissent from Locke's doctrine of ideas had been to some extent anticipated by Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), set out to vindicate the common sense, or natural judgement, of mankind, by which the real existence of both subject and object is held to be directly known (natural realism). He argued that if it cannot be proved that there is any real external world or continuously existing mind, the true conclusion is not that these have no existence or are unknowable, but that our consciousness of them is an ultimate fact, which neither needs nor is capable of proof, but is itself the ground of all proof. "All knowledge and all science must be built upon principles that are self-evident; and of such principles every man who has common sense is a competent judge" (Works, ed. 1863, p. 422). Dugald Stewart (1753-1828), who followed Reid's method without serious modification, was more precise, and gave greater prominence than Reid to his doctrine of "suggestion", or the association of ideas. Dr. Thomas Brook (1778-1820), while accepting Reid's main principal, carried the analysis of the phenomena of perception further than either Reid or Stewart, resolving some of their first principles into elements of experience, particularly in his treatment of the notion of causality. Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832) adopted the principles of common sense, but accepted the utilitarian criterion of morality, held by the school of Hartly, and applied the analytic method to the moral faculty which Reid had taken to be "an original power in man". Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856) illustrated the prin- ciple of common sense with wider learning and greater philosophical acumen than any of his predecessors. He was much influenced by Kant, and he introduced into his system distinctions which the Common Sense School had not recognized. While professing himself a natural realist, he held a somewhat extreme doctrine of the relativity of knowledge. His comments on Reid indicate many ambiguities and inaccuracies on the part of that author. James Oswald (l727-1793) made use of Reid's principles in support of religious belief, and James Beattie (1735-1803) in defence of the existence of a moral faculty.

The common sense philosophy, adopting the Baconian method of "interrogation", or analysis, rejects, as contrary to the universal convictions of mankind, the notion of ideas as a tertium quid intervening between the object perceived and the perceiving subject. All knowledge comes by way of sensation; and the reality of the external object is implied in sensation, together with the metaphysical principle of the existence of bodily and mental substance, of causality, and of design and intelligence in causation. What sensation is in itself it is impossible to say; it is an ultimate fact, and cannot be described or defined. But sensations are clearly not images or ideas of the objects which cause them; there is no resemblance between the pain of a wound and the point of a sword. Reid and his successors insist on the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the former (extension, figure, hardness, etc.) being "suggested" by sensations as essentially belonging to the object perceived, and the latter (as colour, taste, smell, etc.) being no more than sensations in the subject arising from qualities of the object which are only accidental or contingent. Hamilton, however, subdivides secondary qualities into secondary and secundo-primary, a distinction now generally considered to be ill-founded. The mental powers are divided into intellectual and active, a distinction corresponding to the peripatetic classification of cognitive and appetitive. All cognition has thus an intellectual element, and takes place by way of suggestion, or association (a theory in which Reid was anticipated by Hutcheson). In cognition the mind is partly active and partly passive; the notion that it is a mere receptacle for ideas is rejected. Consciousness is regarded by Reid as a separate faculty, somewhat resembling the scholastic sensus communis; Brown and Hamilton dissent from this view, holding "consciousness" to be merely a general expression for the fundamental condition of all mental activity. The idea of causality, which implies the universal necessity of causation, cannot be educed from experience, since necessity (as opposed to mere invariableness) cannot be known by experience; it is therefore an original principle in the mind. In like manner, the will is known immediately as free; its freedom is not susceptible of proof but is intuitively recognized; and it is from the consciousness of will-power in ourselves that we derive our notion of causation. Brown, however, while accepting Reid's intuitional view of the idea of causality, inclines towards Hume in his definition of causation as no more than invariable sequence; he also differs from Reid in making will a modification of desire or appetite. The belief in the uniformity of nature, on which all scientific discovery is based, is held by Reid to be an original principle in the mind. Conscience, or the moral sense, is taken to be an original faculty by the Common Sense School in general, with the exception of Mackintosh, who derives the so-called faculty in great measure from the influence of social experience upon the will.

The psychological analysis of this school is valuable; but its main principle has been considerably weakened by contact with Kantian criticism and the evolutionist doctrine, and with Hamilton lost much of its polemical effectiveness. "The philosophy of Common Sense, devised by Reid as a safeguard against Scepticism and Idealism, was so transmuted by Hamilton as to lead back again to the conclusion that nothing can be known, and consequently that nothing can be affirmed or denied, beyond the fleeting phenomena of consciousness" (Laurie, Scottish Philosophy, p. 291). In France, Royer-Collard (1763-1845) introduced the principles of the Scottish School; Jouffroy (1796-1842) translated the works of Reid; and Cousin (1792-1867) in his "Philosophie ecossaise" praised Reid's philosophy in the highest terms. It may be safely said that the materialistic tendency of French speculation was checked by the influences derived from the philosophy of common sense.

Hutchenson, Essay on the Passions and Affections (London, 1728). Idem, Metaphysical Synopsis (London, 1742). Idem, System of Moral Phil. (Glasgow, 1755). Reid, Works, with preface, notes, and dissertation by Hamilton (Edinburgh, 1846); new ed. by Mansel (1863). Buffier, Premieres Verites (tr. London, 1781), "with a detection of the plagiarism, concealment, and ingratitude of Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald". Jouffroy, Oeuvres completes de Reid (Paris, 1829). Oswald, Appeal to Common Sense (Edinburgh, 1768). Beattie, Essay on Truth (Aberdeen, 1770). Idem, Elements of Moral Science (1790). Priestly, Examination of Reid, etc. (London, 1774). Stewart, Complete Works (Cambridge, Mass., 1829-31); ed. with additions and memoir by Sir W. Hamilton and completed by Veitch (Edinburgh, 1858). Brown, Inquiry into Relation of Cause and Effect (Edinburgh, 1804). Idem, Lectures on the Phil. of the Human Mind (Edinburgh, 1820). Mackintosh, On the Progress of Ethical Philosophy in Encyc. Brit. (1830); ed. with preface by Whewell (Philadelphia, 1832). Idem, two papers in Edinburgh Review, XXVII, XXXVI. Hamilton, Lectures, ed. Mansel and Veitch (London, Edinburgh, and Boston, 1860). Idem, Essays in Edinburgh Review (1829-30-32). Idem, Metaphysics, ed. Bowen (Cambridge, Mass., 1870); see Mill, Exam. of Hamilton's Philosophy (London, 1865). McCosh, Scottish Philosophy (London, 1875). Seth (A. S. Pringle-Pattison), Scottish Philosophy (Edinburgh and London, 1885 and 1900). Ferrier, Reid and the Philosophy of Common Sense (1847) in Ferrier's Works (Edinburgh and London, 1883), III, 407; see also Maher, Psychology (London, 1903), 33, 49, 102 sqq. James, Pragmatism (London and New York, 1907), lect v. Laurie, Scottish Philosophy in its National Development (London and Glasgow, 1902).

A.B. SHARPE

Martyrs of the Paris Commune

The secular priests and the religious who were murdered in Paris, in May 1871, on account of their sacred calling. They may be divided into three groups:

1. those who on the 24th of May were executed within the prison of La Roquette;
2. the Dominican Fathers, who, on the following day, were shot down at the Barrière d' Italie;
3. the priests and religious who, on the 26th of May were massacred at Belleville.

The revolutionary party which took possession of the city after the siege of Paris by the Prussians began, in the last days of March, to arrest the priests and religious to whom personal character or official position gave a certain prominence. No reason was given for these arbitrary measures, except the hatred with which the leaders of the Commune regarded the Catholic Church and her ministers.

(1) At the head of the first group of martyrs is the Archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur Georges Darboy, to whom the discomforts of his prison life were peculiarly trying on account of his feeble health. His fellow sufferers were: the Abbé Duguerry, curé of the important parish of La Madeleine, an old man, well-advanced in years, but bright and vigorous; the Abbé Allard, a secular priest, who had rendered good service to the wounded during the siege, and two Jesuit Fathers Ducoudray and Clerc. The first was rector of the Ecole Sainte-Geneviève, a well known preparatory school for the army: the second had been a distinguished naval officer; both were gifted and holymen. To these five ecclesiastics was added a magistrate, Senator Bonjean. After several weeks of confinement, first in the prison or Mazas, then at La Roquette, these six prisoners were executed on 24 May. There was no pretense made of judging them, neither was any accusation brought against them. This revolutionary party still held possession of the east of Paris, but the regular army, whose headquarters were at Versailles, was fast approaching, and the leaders of the Commune, made desperate by failure, wished to inflict what evil they could on an enemy they no longer hoped to conquer. The priests had, one and all, endured their captivity with patience and dignity the Jesuits, their letters prove it, had no illusions as to their probable fate, Archbishop Darboy and the Abbé Deguerry were more sanguine. "What have they to gain by killing us? What harm have we done them?" often said the latter. The execution took place in the evening. The archbishop absolved his companions who were calm and recollected. They were told to stand against a wall, within the precincts of the prison, and here they were shot down at close quarters by twenty men, enlisted for the purpose. The archbishop's hand was raised to give a last blessing: "Here take my blessing", said one of the murders and by discharging his gun he give the signal for the execution.

(2) The Dominican Fathers, who perished the following day 25 May, belonged to the College of Arcueil, close to Paris. Their superior was Father Captier, who founded the college and under whose government it had prospered. With him were for religious of his order: Fathers Bourard, Delhorme Cottrault, and Chatagneret, and eight laymen, who belonged to the college, either as professors or as servants. They were arrested on the 19th of May and imprisoned in the outlying fort of Bicêtre, where they suffered from hunger and thirst. On the 25th of May they were transferred from Bicêtre to a prison within the city, situated on the Avenue d' Italie. The excitement and anarchy that reigned in Paris, and the insults that were levelled at the prisoners as they were led from one prison to another prepared them for the worst; they made their confession and prepared for death. Towards five in the afternoon, they were commanded to go into the street one by one: Father Captier, whose strong faith sustained his companion's courage, turned to them: "Let us go, my friends, for the sake of God". The street was filled with armed men who discharged their guns at the prisoners as they passed. Father Captier was mortally wounded; his companions fell here and there; some were killed on the spot; others lingered on till their assassins put them out of their pain. Their dead bodies remained for twenty-four hours on the ground, exposed to an insult; only the next morning, when the troops from Versailles had conquered the Commune, were they claimed by the victims' friends and conveyed to Arcuil.

(3) The third group of martyrs perished on the 26th of May; the revolutionists were now driven back by the steady advance of the regular troops, and only the heights of Belleville were still in the possession of the Commune. Over fifty prisoners were taken from the prison of La Roquette and conducted on foot to this last stronghold of the revolution. Among them were eleven ecclesiastics: three Jesuits, four members of the Congregation of the Sacred Heart and Mary, three secular priests, and one seminarist. All displayed heroic courage, the best known among them was Father Olivaint, rector of the Jesuit house of the Rue de Sèvres, who thirsted for martyrdom. After a painful journey through the streets, which were filled with an infuriated rabble, the prisoner were into an enclosure, called the cite Vincennes, on the height os Belleville. Here they were hacked to pieces by a crowd of men, women, and even children. There was no attempt to organize a regular execution like the one at La Raquette; the massacre lasted an hour, and most of the bodies were disfigured beyond recognition. Only a few hours later the regular troops forced their way to La Roquette, delivered the prioners that still remained there, and took possession of Belleville, the stronghold of Commune.

BARBARA DE COURSON

Communicatio Idiomatum

("Communication of Idioms").

A technical expression in the theology of the Incarnation. It means that the properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Christ, and that the properties of the man Christ can be predicated of the Word. The language of Scripture and of the Fathers shows that such a mutual interexchange of predicates is legitimate; in this article its source and the rules determining its use will be briefly considered.

I. SOURCE

The source of the communicatio idiomatum is not to be found in the close moral union between Christ and God as maintained by the Nestorians, nor in Christ's fullness of grace and supernatural gifts, nor, again, in the fact that the Word owns the human nature of Christ by right of creation. God the Father and the Holy Ghost have the same right and interest as the Son in all created things except in the human nature of Jesus Christ. This the Son by Assumption has made His own in a way that is not theirs, i.e., by the incommunicable property of personal union. In Christ there is one person with two natures, the human and the Divine. In ordinary language all the properties of a subject are predicated of its person; consequently the properties of Christ's two natures must be predicated of his one person, since they have only one subject of predication. He Who is the Word of God on account of His eternal generation is also the subject of human properties; and He Who is the man Christ on account of having assumed human nature is the subject of Divine attributes. Christ is God; God is man.

II. USE

The communicatio idiomatum is based on the oneness of person subsisting in the two natures of Jesus Christ. Hence it can be used as long as both the subject and the predicate of a sentence stand for the person of Jesus Christ, or present a common subject of predication. For in this case we simply affirm that He Who subsists in the Divine nature and possesses certain Divine properties is the same as He Who subsists in the human nature and possesses certain human properties. The following considerations will show the application of this principle more in detail:

(1) In general, concrete terms stand for the person: hence, statements interchanging the Divine and human properties of Christ are, generally speaking, correct if both their subjects and predicates be concrete terms. We may safely say, "God is man", though we must observer certain cautions:

• The concrete human names of Christ describe His person according to His human nature. They presuppose the Incarnation, and their application to Christ previously to the completion of the hypostatic union would involve the Nestorian view that Christ's human nature had its own subsistence. Consequently, such expressions as "man became God" are to be avoided.
• Concrete terms used reduplicatively emphasize the nature rather than the person. The statement "God as God has suffered" means that God according to His Divine nature has suffered; needless to say, such statements are false.
• Certain expressions, though correct in themselves, are for extrinsic reasons, inadmissible; the statement "One of the Trinity was crucified" was misapplied in a Monophysite sense and was therefore forbidden by Pope Hormisdas; the Arians misinterpreted the words "Christ is a creature"; both Arians and Nestorians misused the expressions "Christ had a beginning" and "Christ is less than the Father" or "less than God"; the Docetists abused the terms "incorporeal" and "impassible".

• Aside from the personal relations in God there is no real distinction admissible in Him. Hence abstract names and attributes of God, though standing formally for the Divine nature, imply really also the Divine persons. Absolutely speaking, we may replace a concrete Divine name by its corresponding abstract one and still keep the communication idiomatum. Thus we may say "Omnipotence was crucified", in the sense that He Who is omnipotent (Omnipotence) is the same as He Who was crucified. But such expressions are liable to be misunderstood and great care must be exercised in their use.
• There is less danger in the use of those abstract terms which express attributes appropriated to the Second person of the Trinity. We may say "Eternal Wisdom became man".
• There is no communicatio idiomatum between the two natures of Christ, or between the Word and the human nature as such or its parts. The fundamental error of the Ubiquitists consists in predicating of the human nature or of humanity the properties of the Divine nature. We cannot say that "the Word is the humanity", and still less that "the Word is the soul" or "the body of Christ".

• In negative sentences: though it be true that Christ did not die according to His Divine nature, we cannot say, "Christ did not die", without impairing His human nature;
• in exclusive sentences: if we say "Christ is only God" or "Christ is only man", we destroy either His human or His Divine nature;
• in the use of ambiguous terms: the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Adoptionists misused the term "servant", inferring from the expression, "Christ is the servant of God", conclusions agreeing with their respective heresies.

A.J. MAAS

Communion Antiphon

The term Communion (Communio) is used, not only for the reception of the Holy Eucharist, but also as a shortened form for the antiphon (Antiphone ad Communionem) that was originally sung while the people were receiving the Blessed Sacrament, but which has now been displaced, so as to follow that moment. In the Ambrosian Rite this antiphon is called the Transitorium, apparently because the celebrant after Communion goes over (transit) to the Epistle side of the altar to read it. It is the fourth and last of the changeable parts of the Mass (Proprium) sung by the choir (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion), and is at least as old as the fourth century. In St. Augustine's time (d. 430), together with the Offertory Antiphon, it had lately been introduced into Africa; he wrote a treatise (Contra Hilarium) to defend their use (Duchesne, Origines, 166, 179). But the present Communion is only a fragment of the older chant. It was originally a psalm, with the Gloria Patri, preceded and concluded by an antiphon. The First Roman Ordo (about 770) contains the direction: "As soon as the pontiff begins to give Communion in the Senatorium [where the most distinguished people stood] at once the choir begins the antiphon for the Communion, singing it alternately with the subdeacons; and they go until all the people have received Communion. Then the pontiff makes a sign to them to sing the Gloria Patri; and so, when they have repeated the antiphon [ repetito versu] they stop" (ed. Atchley, 144). This is the first definite rubric we have about the Communio. It shows us that it was to be sung while the celebrant goes around to Communicate the people; and that it consisted of a psalm, sung alternately with its antiphon, as were, at that time, also the Introit and Offertory. So also Micrologus (Bernold of Constance, d. 1100) says that when the people Communicate, "meanwhile the antiphon is sung which takes its name from the Communion, to which a psalm must be added with its Gloria Patri if need be" (ch. xviii in Migne, P.L., CLI, 973 sq.). It was, then, like the other three parts that make up the Proprium of the choir, a chant to be sung so as to fill up the time while the clergy were engaged in some action.

The two changes in its history are that it has been removed to its place after the Communion and has been shortened. Its postponement began in the twelfth century. Abbot Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135) says: "The chant that we call the Communion, which we sing after the heavenly food, is a thanksgiving" (De div. off., II, xviii, in Migne, P.L., CLXX, 13 sq.), and Durandus: "The antiphon, which is called Post-communion by many because it is sung after the Communion . . ." (Rationale, IV, 56). But he goes on to describe the final collect as that which "is properly called Post-communion" (ib., 57) There are other instances of this antiphon occasionally being called Post-Communion. The reason of its removal seems to have been, on the one hand, the place of the Agnus Dei, which at that time began to be sung during the Communion, and to be repeated thrice, thus taking up more time (Gihr, Messopfer, 671); on the other hand, the gradual lessening of the number of communicants at high Mass. Its shortened form is part of the curtailing of all the prayers of the Mass that was the result of the multiplication of low Masses. Only in requiems have we a remnant of the older form. Here after the first verse (Lux æterna) follows an antiphon (Cum sanctis tuis), then the "Requiem æternam" -- last vestige of the psalm -- and the antiphon is repeated. Otherwise the Communion is always one short antiphon, sung by the choir immediately after the Agnus Dei, and said by the celebrant after the Communion. It is generally a verse from Holy Scripture, referring, not to the Holy Eucharist, but rather to the feast which is celebrated or to the special season (de tempore) or to the purpose (in votives) for which the Mass is offered. But not seldom it is a text taken from some other source, or specially composed for this use. It is always said by the priest at the altar. Since the common use of low Mass, in which he substitutes the choir's part himself, the rule is that the priest also says whatever is sung by them. As soon as he has arranged the chalice and paten in the middle of the altar (at high Mass the subdeacon does this, and takes them to the credence-table) he goes with joined hands to the Missal, which has been replaced at the Epistle side, and there, the hands still joined, reads the Communion from the Proprium. He then comes back to the middle for the Dominus vobiscum before the Post-Communion.

"Rubricæ Generales", XIII, 1; "Ritus cel"., XI, 1; ATCHLEY, "Ordo Romanus Primus" (London, 1905); BENEDICT XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacrificio", II, xxiv; GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), II, §71,706-708; DUCHESNE, "Origines du culte chrétien" (2nd ed., Paris, 1898), 166, 179; DE HERDT, "S. Liturgie Praxis" (9th ed., Louvain, 1894), 389-390, 480-483; MORAN, "Essays on the Origin, Doctrine" and "Discipline of the Early Irish Church" (Dublin 1864) 165-66; also "P.L". LXX, 580.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Communion Bench

An adaptation of the sanctuary guard or altar rail. Standing in front of this barrier, in a space called the chancel, or pectoral, the faithful were wont in early times to receive Holy Communion, the men taking the Consecrated Bread into their hands and the women receiving it on a white cloth, called the domenical, while deacons administered the Precious Blood which each took through a reed of gold or silver. About the twelfth century when the custom arose of receiving under one kind only, the priests placed the small Hosts on the tongues of the communicants at the chancel-rail. Later on, about the fifteenth century the practice was introduced of receiving Holy Communion kneeling, and so the altar-rail gradually came to assume a form better suited to its modern use, and like what it is at present (Bourassé, Dict. D'Arch. Paris, 1851). When large crowd approach the altar on special occasions so that the ordinary accommodation for receiving is not adequate, a row of prie-Dieu or benches provided with Communion cloths or cards, with a lighted candle at the end of each row, may be arranged around the chancel. (Cong. of Rites, Decr. 3086, Nov. ed.)

PATRICK MORRISROE

Communion of Children

In order to get some insight into the historical aspect of this subject it will be useful to dwell upon (1) the ancient practice, and (2) the present discipline of the Church in regard to the Communion of children.

I. ANCIENT PRACTICE

It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. Among others St. Cyprian (Lib. de Lapsis, c. xxv) makes reference to the practice. In the East the custom was pretty universal, and even to this day exists in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not so general. Here, moreover, it was restricted to the occasions of baptism and dangerous illness. Probably it originated in a mistaken notion of the absolute necessity of the Blessed Eucharist for salvation, founded on the words of St. John (vi, 54). In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day. The manner of Communicating infants was by dipping the finger in the consecrated chalice and then applying it to the tongue of the child. This would seem to imply that it was only the Precious Blood that was administered, but evidence is not wanting to show that the other Consecrated Species was also given in similar circumstances (cf. Sebastiano Giribaldi, Op. Mor., I, c. 72). That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv).

II. PRESENT DISCIPLINE

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion.

Thus it is seen that a keener religious sense, so to speak, is demanded for the reception of Communion than for confession. Moreover, it is agreed that children in danger of death ought to be admitted to Communion even though they may not have the same degree of fitness that would be required in ordinary circumstances. In answer to a question as to whether a certain episcopal ordinance should be upheld that fixed a definite age-limit under which children could not be admitted to First Communion, the Congregation of the Council replied in the affirmative, provided, however, that those children adjudged to have reached the discretion required by the Councils of Lateran and Trent might not be excluded (21 July, 1888). This reply bears out the interpretation already given of "the years of discretion" and it may be said in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pt. II, c. iv, q. 63) that "no one can better determine the age at which the sacred mysteries should be given to young children than their parents and confessor".

The duty of preparing candidates for First Communion is the most important that can fall to the lot of a pastor (O'Kane, Rubrics of Rom. Rit., p. 391). This is amply recognized by the Church in every country, for almost every diocese has its statutes regulating with scrupulous exactness all the preliminaries of this sacred and solemn event (cf. Decr. of III Plen. Balt., no. 217, 218, etc.). A long course of religious instruction is usually prescribed while the moral training and virtuous formation of the mind is also urgently insisted upon. In regard to First Communion it may he observed:

A short address may be given in this case immediately before the distribution of Communion (De Herdt, Praxis Lit., I, 277; Rom. Rit., De Euch., t. XXIII). The decree "Sacra Tridentina Synodus", published Dec., 1905, about daily Communion applies to all persons, young and old, who have made their First Communion (Anal. Eccl., 1906, p. 833).

In addition to the ordinary handbooks on Christian doctrine, see also: De LUGO, De Sanct. Euch. Sacr., disp. xiii; LIGUORI, Theol. Mor., I, lib. VI; LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. Comp., II; GASPARRI, Tract. Can. de Euch., II; GIHR, L'Eucharistie.

PATRICK MORRISROE.

The Communion of Saints

(communo sanctorum, a fellowship of, or with, the saints).

The doctrine expressed in the second clause of the ninth article in the received text of the Apostles' Creed: "I believe . . . the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints". This, probably the latest, addition to the old Roman Symbol is found in:

• the Gallican Liturgy of the seventh century (P.L., LXXII, 349, 597);
• in some letters of the Pseudo-Augustine (P. L., XXXIX, 2189, 2191, 2194), now credited to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 543);
• in the "De Spiritu Sancto" (P. L., LXII, 11), ascribed to Faustus of Riez (c. 460);
• in the "Explanatio Symboli" (P. L., LII, 871) of Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 400); and
• in two documents of uncertain date, the "Fides Hieronymi", and an Armenian confession.

On these facts critics have built various theories. Some hold the addition to be a protest against Vigilantius, who condemned the veneration of the saints; and he connects that protest with Faustus in Southern Gaul and probably also with Nicetas in Pannonia, who was influenced by the "Catecheses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Others see in it at first a reaction against the separatism of the Donatists, therefore an African and Augustinian conception bearing only on church membership, the higher meaning of fellowship with the departed saints having been introduced later by Faustus. Still others think that it originated, with an anti-Donatist meaning, in Armenia, whence it passed to Pannonia, Gaul, the British Isles, Spain, etc., gathering new meanings in the course of its travels till it finally resulted in the Catholic synthesis of medieval theologians. These and many other conjectures leave undisturbed the traditional doctrine, according to which the communion of saints, wheresoever it was introduced into the Creed, is the natural outgrowth of Scriptural teaching, and chiefly of the baptismal formula; still the value of the dogma does not rest on the solution of that historical problem.

Catholic Doctrine

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (I Cor., i, 2-Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ's power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, "the Holy Catholic Church", it really extends to what it calls the Church's "constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day"; the broad principle it enunciates thus: "every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own".

In this vast Catholic conception rationalists see not only a late creation, but also an ill-disguised reversion to a lower religious type, a purely mechanical process of justification, the substitution of impersonal moral value in lieu of personal responsibility. Such statements are met best, by the presentation of the dogma in its Scriptural basis and its theological formulation. The first spare yet clear outline of the communion of saints is found in the "kingdom of God" of the Synoptics, not the individualistic creation of Harnack nor the purely eschatological conception of Loisy, but an organic whole (Matt., xiii, 31), which embraces in the bonds of charity (Matt., xxii, 39) all the children of God (Matt., xix, 28; Luke, xx, 36) on earth and in heaven (Matt., vi, 20), the angels themselves joining in that fraternity of souls (Luke, xv, 10). One cannot read the parables of the kingdom (Matt., xiii) without perceiving its corporate nature and the continuity which links together the kingdom in our midst and the kingdom to come. The nature of that communion, called by St. John a fellowship with one another ("a fellowship with us"--I John, i, 3) because it is a fellowship with the Father, and with his Son", and compared by him to the organic and vital union of the vine and its branches (John, xv), stands out in bold relief in the Pauline conception of the mystical body. Repeatedly St. Paul speaks of the one body whose head is Christ (Col., i, 18), whose energizing principle is charity (Eph., iv, 16), whose members are the saints, not only of this world, but also of the world to come (Eph., I, 20; Heb., xii, 22). In that communion there is no loss of individuality, yet such an interdependence that the saints are "members one of another" (Rom., xii, 5), not only sharing the same blessings (I Cor., xii, 13) and exchanging good offices (ibid., xii, 25) and prayers (Eph., vi, 18), but also partaking of the same corporate life, for "the whole body . . . by what every joint supplieth . . . maketh increase . . . unto the edifying of itself in charity" (Eph., iv, 16).

Recent well-known researches in Christian epigraphy have brought out clear and abundant proof of the principal manifestations of the communion of saints in the early Church. Similar evidence, is to be found in the Apostolic Fathers with an occasional allusion to the Pauline conception. For an attempt at the formulation of the dogma we have to come down to the Alexandrian School. Clement of Alexandria shows the "gnostic's" ultimate relations with the angels (Strom., VI, xii, 10) and the departed souls (ibid., VIII, xii, 78); and he all but formulates the thesaurus ecclesiae in his presentation of the vicarious martyrdom, not of Christ alone, but also of the Apostles and other martyrs (ibid., IV, xii, 87). Origen enlarges, almost to exaggeration, on the idea of vicarious martyrdom (Exhort. ad martyr., ch. 1) and of communion between man and angels (De orat., xxxi); and accounts for it by the unifying power of Christ's Redemption), ut caelestibus terrena sociaret (In Levit., hom. iv) and the force of charity, stranger in heaven than upon earth (De orat., xi). With St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom the communion of saints has become an obvious tenet used as an answer to such popular objections as these: what, need of a communion with others? (Basil, Ep. cciii) another has sinned and I shall atone? (Chrysostom, Hom. i, de poenit.). St. John Damascene has only to collect the sayings of the Fathers in order to support the dogma of the invocation of the saints and the prayers for the dead.

But the complete presentation of the dogma comes from the later Fathers. After the statements of Tertullian, speaking of "common hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and suffering" (De poenit., ix and x); of St. Cyprian, explicitly setting forth the communion of merits (De lapsis, xvii); of St. Hilary, giving the Eucharistic Communion as a means and symbol of the communion of saints (in Ps. lxiv, 14), we come to the teaching of Ambrose and St. Augustine. From the former, the thesaurus ecclesiae, the best practical test of the reunion of saints, receives a definite explanation (De poenit., I, xv; De officiis, I, xix). In the transcendent view of the Church taken by the latter (Enchir., lvi) the communion of saints, though never so called by him, is a necessity; to the Civitas Dei must needs correspond the unitas caritatis (De unitate eccl., ii), which embraces in an effective union the saints and angels in heaven (Enarr. in Psalmos, XXXVI, iii, 4), the just on earth (De bapt., III, xvii), and in a lower degree, the sinners themselves, the putrida membra of the mystic body; only the declared heretics, schismatics, and apostates are excluded from the society, though not from the prayers, of the saints (Serm. cxxxvii). The Augustinian concept, though somewhat obscured in the catechetical expositions of the Creed by the Carlovingian and later theologians (P. L., XCIX, CI, CVIII, CX, CLII, CLXXXVI), takes its place in the medieval synthesis of Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, etc.

Influenced no doubt by early writers like Yvo of Chartres (P. L., CLXII, 606l), Abelard (P. L. CLXXXIII, 630), and probably Alexander of Hales (III, Q. lxix, a, 1), St. Thomas (Expos. in symb. 10) reads in the neuter the phrase of the Creed, communio sanctorum (participation of spiritual goods), but apart from the point of grammar his conception of the dogma is thorough. General principle; the merits of Christ are communicated to all, and the merits of each one are communicated to the others (ibid.). The manner of participation: both objective and intentional, in radice operis, ex intentione facientis (Supp., 71:1). The measure: the degree of charity (Expos. in symb., 10). The benefits communicated: not the sacraments alone but, the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints forming the thesaurus ecclesia (ibid. and Quodlib., II, Q. viii, a. 16). The participants: the three parts of the Church (Expos. in symb., 9); consequently the faithful on earth exchanging merits and satisfactions (I-II:113:6, and Suppl., 13:2), the souls in purgatory profiting by the suffrages of the living and the intercession of the saints (Suppl., 71), the saints themselves receiving honour and giving intercession (II-II:83:4, II-II:83:11, III:25:6), and also the angels, as noted above. Later Scholastics and post-Reformation theologians have added little to the Thomistic presentation of the dogma. They worked rather around than into it, defending such points as were attacked by heretics, showing the religious, ethical, and social value of the Catholic conception; and they introduced the distinction between the body and the soul of the Church, between actual membership and membership in desire, completing the theory of the relations between church membership and the communion of saints which had already been outlined by St. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine at the time of the Donatist controversy. One may regret the plan adopted by the Schoolmen afforded no comprehensive view of the whole dogma, bur rather scattered the various components of it through a vast synthesis. This accounts for the fact that a compact exposition of the communion of saints is to be sought less in the works of our standard theologians than in our catechetical, apologetic, pastoral, and even ascetic literature. It may also partly explain, without excusing them, the gross misrepresentations noticed above.

In the Anglo-Saxon Church

That the Anglo-Saxons held the doctrine of the communion of saints may be judged from the following account given by Lingard in his "History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church." They received the practice of venerating the saints, he says, together with the rudiments the Christian religion; and they manifested their devotion to them both in public and private worship: in public, by celebrating the anniversaries of individual saints, and keeping annually the feast of All-Hallows as a solemnity of the first class; and in their private devotions, by observing the instructions to worship God and then to "pray, first to Saint Mary, and the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God's saints, that they would intercede for them to God". In this way they learned to look up to the saints in heaven with feelings of confidence and affection, to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the supplicant.

Like all other Christians, the Anglo-Saxons held in special veneration "the most holy mother of God, the perpetual virgin Saint Mary" (Beatissima Dei genitrix et perpetua virgo.-Bede, Hom. in Purif.). Her praises were sung by the Saxon poets; hymns in her honour were chanted in the public service; churches and altars were placed under her patronage; miraculous cures were ascribed to her; and four annual feasts were observed commemorating the principal events of her mortal life: her nativity, the Annunciation, her purification, and assumption. Next to the Blessed Virgin in the devotion was Saint Peter, whom Christ had chosen for the leader of the Apostles and to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, "with the chief exercise of judicial power in the Church, to the end that all might know that whosoever should separate himself from the unity of Peter's faith or of Peter's fellowship, that man could never attain absolution from the bonds of sin, nor admission through the gates of the heavenly kingdom" (Bede). These words of the Venerable Bede refer, it is true, to Peter's successors as well as to Peter himself, but they also evidence the veneration of Anglo-Saxons for the Prince of the Apostles, a veneration which they manifested in the number of churches dedicated to his memory, in the pilgrimages made to his tomb, and by the presents sent to the church in which his remains rested and to the bishop who sat in his chair. Particular honours were paid also to Saints Gregory and Augustine, to whom they were chiefly indebted for their knowledge of Christianity. They called Gregory their "foster-father in Christ" and themselves "his foster-children in baptism"; and spoke of Augustine as "the first to bring to them the doctrine of faith, the sacrament of baptism, and the knowledge of their heavenly country". While these saints were honoured by the whole people, each separate nation revered the memory of its own apostle. Thus Saint Aidan in Northumbria, Saint Birinus in Wessex, and Saint Felix in East Anglia were venerated as the protectors of the countries which had been the scenes of their labours. All the saints so far mentioned were of foreign extraction; but the Anglo-Saxons soon extended their devotion to men who had been born and educated among them and who by their virtues and zeal in propagating Christianity had merited the honours of sanctity.

This account of the devotion of the Anglo-Saxons to those whom they looked up to as their friends and protectors in heaven is necessarily brief, but it is amply sufficient to show that they believed and loved the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Protestant Views

Sporadic errors against special points of the communion of saints are pointed out by the Synod of Gangra (Mansi, II, 1103), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P. G., XXXIII, 1116), St. Epiphanius (ibid., XLII, 504), Asteritis Amasensis (ibid., XL, 332), and St. Jerome (P. L., XXIII, 362). From the forty-second proposition condemned, and the twenty-ninth question asked, by Martin V at Constance (Denzinger, nos. 518 and 573), we also know that Wyclif and Hus had gone far towards denying the dogma itself. But the communion of saints became a direct issue only at the time of the Reformation. The Lutheran churches, although commonly adopting the Apostles' Creed, still in their original confessions, either pass over in silence the communion of saints or explain it as the Church's "union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith" (Luther's Small Catechism), or as "the congregation of saints and true believers" (Augsburg Confession, ibid., III, 12), carefully excluding, if not the memory, at least the invocation of the saints, because Scripture "propoundeth unto us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High-Priest, and Intercessor" (ibid., III, 26). The Reformed churches generally maintain the Lutheran identification of the communion of saints with the body of believers but do not limit its meaning to that body. Calvin (Inst. chret., IV, 1, 3) insists that the phrase of the Creed is more than a definition of the Church; it conveys the meaning of such a fellowship that whatever benefits God bestows upon the believers should mutually communicate to one another. That view is followed in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphasized in the Gallican Confession, wherein communion is made to mean the efforts of believers to mutually strengthen themselves in the fear of God. Zwingli in his articles admits an exchange of prayers between the faithful and hesitates to condemn prayers for the dead, rejecting only the saints' intercession as injurious to Christ. Both the Scotch and Second Helvetic Confessions bring together the Militant and the Triumphant Church, but whereas the former is silent on the signification of the fact, the latter says that they hold communion with each other: "nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel conjunctionem".

The double and often conflicting influence of Luther and Calvin, with a lingering memory of Catholic orthodoxy, is felt in the Anglican Confessions. On this point the Thirty-nine Articles are decidedly Lutheran, rejecting as they do "the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints", because they see in it "a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God". On the other hand, the Westminster Confession, while ignoring the Suffering and the Triumphant Church, goes beyond the Calvinistic view and falls little short of the Catholic doctrine with regard to the faithful on earth, who, it says, "being united to one another in love, have communion in each other's gifts and graces". In the United States, the Methodist Articles of Religion, 1784, as well as the Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion, 1875, follow the teachings of the Thirty-nine Articles, whereas the teaching of the Westminster Confession is adopted in the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1688, and in the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 1829. Protestant theologians, just as Protestant confessions, waver between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic view.

The cause of the perversion by Protestants of the traditional concept of communion of saints is not to be found in the alleged lack of Scriptural and early Christian evidence in favour of that concept; well-informed Protestant writers have long since ceased to press that argument. Nor is there any force in the oft-repeated argument that the Catholic dogma detracts from Christ's mediatorship, for it is plain, as St. Thomas had already shown (Suppl., 72:2, ad 1), that the ministerial mediatorship of the saints does not detract from, but only enhances, the magisterial mediatorship of Christ. Some writers have traced that perversion to the Protestant concept of the Church as an aggregation of souls and a multitude of units bound together by a community of faith and pursuit and by the ties of Christian sympathy, but in no way organized or interdependent as members of the same body. This explanation is defective because the Protestant concept of the Church is a fact parallel to, but in no way causative of, their view of the communion of saints. The true cause must be found elsewhere. As early as 1519, Luther, the better to defend his condemned theses on the papacy, used the clause of the Creed to show that the communion of saints, and not the papacy, was the Church: "non ut aligui somniant, credo ecclesiam esse praelatum . . . sed . . . communionem sanctorum". This was simply playing on the words of the Symbol. At that time Luther still held the traditional communion of saints, little dreaming that he would one day give it up. But he did give it up when he formulated his theory on justification. The substitution of the Protestant motto, "Christ for all and each one for himself". In place of the old axiom of Hugh of St. Victor, "Singula sint omnium et omina singulorum" (each for all and all for each--P. L., CLXXV. 416), is a logical outcome of their concept of justification; not an interior renovation of the soul, nor a veritable regeneration from a common Father, the second Adam, nor yet an incorporation with Christ, the head of the mystical body, but an essentially individualistic act of fiducial faith. In such a theology there is obviously no room for that reciprocal action of the saints, that corporate circulation of spiritual blessings through the members of the same family, that domesticity and saintly citizenship which lies at the very core of the Catholic communion of saints. Justification and the communion of saints go hand in hand. The efforts which are being made towards reviving in Protestantism the old and still cherished dogma of the communion of saints must remain futile unless the true doctrine of justification be also restored.

J. F. SOLLIER

Communion of the Sick

This differs from ordinary Communion as to the class of persons to whom it is administered, as to the dispositions with which it may be received, and as to the place and ceremonies of administration. In her anxious solicitude for the spiritual welfare of her children the Church earnestly desires that those who are unable through illness to receive the Blessed Eucharist in the usual way at the altar, should not be deprived of the consolations of this sacrament, and, accordingly, she exhorts her pastors to satisfy always the pious desires, not only of all who are stricken with a dangerous sickness and require strength to prepare them for the final struggle, but also of those who may wish to comply with the paschal precept and cannot do so in church, and, in fine, of everyone who hungers after this life-giving bread even from mere devotion. When Communion is administered to persons in danger of death and likely to receive it for the last time it is called the Viaticum. With this form of Communion there is no need to deal at present, as everything concerning it will be treated afterwards in its own place (see VIATICUM). The present article is concerned with Communion which is given to persons in their own houses who, though not dangerously ill, yet are so physically indisposed that they cannot without very grave inconvenience go to church to receive in the ordinary way. In the first place, then, the pastor is bound to minister Communion in their homes to such as have to fulfil their paschal duty and cannot do so in church owing to illness. The pastor's obligation in the matter is not, of course, purely personal, and hence it can be discharged vicariously. Again he is bound, though not so strictly, to satisfy the reasonable desires of all sick persons who are confined to their homes by infirmity of any kind and who wish to receive the Blessed Eucharist. The Roman Ritual observes that these pious wishes should be especially gratified on the occasion of a solemn festival or other celebration of the kind (Tit. IV, cap. iv).

DISPOSITIONS

The sick who desire to receive Communion out of mere devotion were hitherto bound to receive it before tasting any food or drink. Even those who had to fulfil their paschal duty and who could not fast up to a suitable hour in the morning would not be exempted from the obligation of fasting, according to many theologians. A recent Instruction of the Congregation of the Council, dated 7 December, 1906, has modified very considerably the regulations hitherto prevailing in regard to the obligation of observing the natural fast from the previous midnight, as far at least as the sick are concerned. In accordance with the provisions of this new decree all persons confined to their homes by reason of indisposition may be Communicated even though not fasting, provided (1) that they have been sick for a month; (2) that they have medical testimony as to their inability to fast; (3) that there is no certain hope of a speedy recovery; and (4) that only liquid food is taken. When these specified conditions are present Communion may be given once or twice a week to those who live in houses where Mass is celebrated daily, as in convents, and once or twice a month to others not so placed. It is unnecessary to observe that the same dispositions of soul are required in the sick as in all other persons for the fruitful reception of Holy Communion.

CEREMONIES

The Roman Ritual (Tit. IV, c. iv) prescribes, in detail, all the ceremonies to be observed when Communion is given to the sick. The manner of carrying the Blessed Sacrament and of administering it is accurately described. The Consecrated Species should be borne with all due honour, reverence, and dignity, in solemn procession, with lights, and all the other customary formalities. This, however, is according to the general law of the Church. Many countries, at the present day, in which this solemn and public conveyance of the Blessed Sacrament is not possible, have obtained an Apostolic indult in virtue of which the Sacred Species may be carried privately and without any pomp or external ceremonial (Second Plen. Counc. of Balt., n. 264), but it must always be enclosed in a silver box or pyx, which should be securely fastened around the person. Other cases of exception are also recognized (Ben. XIV, "Inter Unigenas"). Whilst carrying the Blessed Sacrament in this private manner, the priest need not wear any sacred vestment, but in the actual administration he should wear at least a stole, soutane, and surplice (cong. Of Rites, n. 2650). The sick chamber should be neatly and chastely arranged. Near the bed there ought to be a table covered with a white cloth, with a crucifix, two candles, small vessel of clean water, Holy Water and sprinkler, and communion-card. It only remains to say that the form used in giving Communion in private houses should be the usual one, the Accipe frater or soror, etc. being restricted to the administration of the Viaticum.

Rit. Rom., De Com. Inf., Tit. IV, Cap. iv; CATALANI, Commentarium in Rit. Rom. (Rome, 1850), I; BARUFFALDI, Rit. Rom. Com. Inf. (Florence, 1847); O'KANE, Notes on Rubrics of Rom. Rit. (Dublin, 1867); VAN DER STAPPEN, De Adm. Sacr. (Mechlin, 1902); GASPARRI, Tract. Can. de Euch. (Freiburg, 1896), II; GIHR, L'Eucharistic.

PATRICK MORRISROE

Communion under Both Kinds

Communion under one kind is the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species or appearance of bread alone, or of wine alone, Communion under two or both kinds, the distinct reception under the two or both species, sub utraque specie, at the same time. In the present article we shall treat the subject under the following heads:

I. Catholic Doctrine and Modern Discipline;

II. History of Disciplinary Variations;

III. Theological Speculation.

I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND MODERN DISCIPLINE

(1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence "although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [ latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John, vi, 54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declarirg that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed betow (II).

(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved -- viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers -- the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar "weighty and just reasons" against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, "Drink ye all of this" (Matt., xxvi, 27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ's action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.

In John, vi, 54, Christ says: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of "this bread" (which is "my flesh for the life of the world", without mention of the drinking of His blood: "if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever". Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception "by eating" and the mode of reception "by drinking", and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way. From which we may infer that whatever special significance attached to the form of expression employed in verse 54, Christ did not have recourse to that form for the purpose of promulgating a law of Communion sub utraque. The twofold expression is employed by Christ in order to heighten the realism of the promise -- to emphasize more vividly the reality of the Eucharistic presence, and to convey the idea that His Body and Blood were to be the perfect spiritual aliment, the food and drink, of the faithful. In the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist this meaning is fully verified. Christ is really and integrally received under either kind; and from the sacramental point of view it is altogether immaterial whether this perfect reception takes place after the analogy in the natural order of solid or of liquid food alone, or after the analogy of both combined (cf. III below). In I Cor., xi, 28, to which Utraquists sometimes appeal, St. Paul is concerned with the preparation required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist. His mention of both species, "the bread and chalice", is merely incidental, and implies nothing more than the bare fact that Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. From the verse immediately preceding (27) a difficulty might be raised against the dogmatic presuppositions of the great majority of Utraquists, and an argument advanced in proof of the Catholic doctrine of the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species. "Whosoever", says the Apostle, "shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord" i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. But it is unnecessary to insist on this argument in defence of the Catholic position. We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. It will appear, further, from the following historical survey, that the Church has never recognized the existence of such a precept.

II. HISTORY OF DISCIPLINARY VARIATIONS

From the First to the Twelfth Century

It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in I Cor., xi, 28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices.

(1) During the third century, in Africa at least, as we learn from Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the practice on the part of the faithful of bringing to their homes and reserving for private Communion a portion of the Eucharistic bread, would appear to have been universal. Tertullian refers to this private domestic Communion as a commonplace in Christian life, and makes it the basis of an argument, addressed to his wife against second marriage with an infidel in case of his own death: "Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes et si sciverit esse panem, non illum credet esse qui dicitur?" (Ad Uxor. c. v, P.L. I, 1296). There can be question here only of the species of bread, and the same is true of the two stories told by St. Cyprian: the one of a man who before Communion, had attended an idolatrous function, and on retiring from the altar and opening his hand in which he had taken and carried the Sacred Species, found nothing in it but ashes; the other of a woman who "cum arcam suam, in qua Domini sanctum fuit, manibus indignis tentasset aperire igne inde surgente deterrita est" (De Lapsis, 26, P.L., IV, 486). This custom owed its origin most probably to the dangers and uncertainties to which Christians were subject in times of persecution, but we have it on the authority of St. Basil (Ep. xciii, P.G., XXXII, 485) that in the fourth century, when the persecutions had ceased, it continued to be a general practice in Alexandria and Egypt; and on the authority of St. Jerome (Ep. xlviii, 15, P.L. XXII, 506) that it still existed at Rome towards the end of same century. It is impossible to say at what precise period the practice disappeared. The many obvious objections against it would seem to have led to its abolition in the West without the need of formal legislation. The third canon attributed to the Council of Saragossa (380) and the fourteenth canon of the Council of Toledo (400), excommunicating those who do not consume in the church the Eucharist received from the priest (Hefele, Conciliengesch., I, 744; II, 79), were directed against the Priscillianists (who refused to consume any portion of the Eucharistic bread in the church), and do not seem to have been intended to prohibit the practice of reserving a portion for private Communion at home. In the East the practice continued long after its disappearance in the West, and in the eighth century the faithful were able to avail themselves of it as a means of avoiding association with the Iconoclastic heretics (Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine, Paris, 1905, p. 339 sq.). It had already been adopted by the anchorites, as St. Basil (loc. cit.) tells us, and continued to be a feature of anchoretic life as late as the ninth century (see Theodore Studita (d. 826), Ep. i, 57, ii, 209, in P.G. XCIX, 1115, 1661).

(2) That Communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria in the middle of the third century is proved by the account of the death-bed Communion of the old man Serapion as told by Eusebius (H.E., VI, xliv, in P.G. XX, 629), on the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264). It is recorded of St. Basil that he received Holy Communion several times on the day of his death, and under the species of bread alone, as may be inferred from the biographer's words (Vita Basilii, iv, P.G. XXIX, 315). We have it on the authority of Paulinus, secretary and biographer of St. Ambrose, that the saint on his death bed received from St. Honoratus of Vercelli "Domini corpus, quo accepto, ubi glutivit, emisit spiritum, bonum viaticum secum ferens" (Vita Ambr., 47, P.L., XIV, 43). These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact that, in the early centuries, reservation of the Eucharist for the sick and dying, of which the Council of Nicaea (325) speaks (can. xiii) as "the ancient and canonical rule", was usual under one kind. The reservation of the species of wine for use as the Viaticum would have involved so many practical difficulties that, in the absence of clear evidence on the subject, we may feel sure that it was never the general practice. We are told by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 67, P.G., VI, 429) that on Sundays, after the celebration of the Sacrifice, the Eucharistic elements were received by all present and carried by the deacons to those absent. But this would have been possible only in small and compact communities, and that it was not a general custom and did not long survive may be inferred from the fact that no subsequent mention of it is to be found. St. Jerome (Ep. cxxv, 20, P.L., XXII, 1085) speaks of St. Exuperitus of Toulouse, "qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro", but this example of a private devotional practice, which is also exceptional in its way, throws no light on the usage of communion for the sick. It is recorded in the life of St. Mary of Egypt (21 sq., P.L. LXXIII, 686) that the Abbot Zosimos brought Communion under both kinds to her solitary retreat in the desert, and in later times there are several examples of dying persons communicating sub utraque. But everything leads us to suppose that such Communions, as a rule, were administered in connection with Mass, celebrated in the house of the sick person or in the immediate vicinity and this supposition is strongly confirmed by the well-known fact that the sick were sometimes carried to the church for the purpose of receiving both the Eucharist and Extreme Unction (see Chardon, Hist. Du Sacrem. de l'Eucharistie, c. v, Migne, Theol. Cursus Completus, XX, 282). It is to be noted, finally, that the sick who could not consume the Host were allowed to receive under the species of wine alone (Council of Toledo, 675, can. ii, Mansi, XI, l43-4).

(3) It was the practice in the Early Church to give the Holy Eucharist to children even before they attained the use of reason. It is implied by St. Cyprian (De Lapsis, 25, P.L., IV, 484) that the chalice alone was offered to them; and St. Augustine, in his incidental references to child Communion, speaks of it as administered under either species (Ep. ccxvii, 5, P.L. XXXIII, 984 sq.), or under the species of wine alone (Opus Imp., II, 30, P.L., XLV, 1154). St. Paulinus of Nola, speaking of newly-baptized children, states that the priest "cruda salutiteris imbuit ora cibis" (Ep. xxxii, 5, P.L., LXI, 333), which is applicable only to the species of wine. In the East also, in some churches at least, children, especially suckling infants, communicated under the species of wine alone (see Dom Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, I, xiv, Gasparri, Tract. canon. SS. Eucharista, II, n. 1121). There are examples, on the other hand, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, of Communion administered to children under the species of bread alone. Thus the Council of Macon (586) decreed that the fragments of consecrated bread remaining over after the Sunday communion were to be consumed by children (innocentes) brought to the church for that purpose on the following Wednesday or Friday (Labbe-Cossart VI, 675); and Evagrius (d. 594) tells us that a similar custom existed at Constantinople from ancient times (Hist. Eccl., IV, 36, P.G., LXXXVI. 2769).

(4) The Mass of the Presanctified, in which the essence of the sacrifice as such is wanting, admits of Communion only under the species of bread. The custom of celebrating in this manner was introduced in the East by the Council of Laodicea in the fourth century (can. xlix) and confirmed by the Second Council in Trullo in 692 (Hefele, op. cit., I, 772). It was the rule for all fast days during Lent, and the faithful were in the habit of receiving at it (Pargoire, op. cit, p. 341 sq.). This custom is still maintained in the East (Gasparri, op. cit., n. 68). In the West the Mass of the Presanctified, celebrated only on Good Friday, is mentioned in the Gelasian Sacramentary (P. L, LXXIV, 1105) and in later sources, and in the beginning the faithful used to communicate at it. Apart from the Class of the Presanctified the faithful were sometimes allowed to receive under the species of bread alone, even at the public Communion in the church. From an incident recorded by Sozomen (H.E., VIII, v, P.L., LXVII, 1528 sq.) as having occurred at Constantinople in the time of St. John Chrysostom, it would seem to follow that the reception of the consecrated bread alone was sufficent to satisfy the requirements of the then existing discipline. The point of the story is, that the unconverted wife of a converted Macedonian heretic, being compelled by her husband to communicate in the Catholic Church, secretly substituted at the moment of reception a piece of ordinary bread, which her servant had brought for the purpose, but was balked in her deceitful design by a miracle, which petrified the bread with the marks of her teeth upon it. In the West, as is clear from St. Leo the Great (Serm. xlii, 5, P.L., LIV, 279 sq.), the Manichaeans at Rome, towards the middle of the fifth century, sometimes succeeded in communicating fraudulently in the Catholic Church: "ore indigno corpus Christi accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant". This sacrilega simulatio on the part of the heretics would have been impossible, unless it was customary at the time for at least some of the faithful to receive under one kind alone. That those detected in this simulatio are ordered by St. Leo to be excluded altogether from Communion, implies no reprobation on the merits of Communion under one kind; and the same is true of the decree attributed by Gratian to Pope Gelasius, "aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur" (De Consec., D. II, c. xii, P.L., CLXXXVII, 1736). In the monastic rule attributed to St. Columbanus (d. 615) it is prescribed that novices and those not properly instructed "ad calicem non accedant" (P.L., LXXX, 220). This also seems to imply the usage in some cases of Communion under one kind; and, as a further instance of divergence in this direction from Communion strictly sub utraque, may be mentioned the practice, introduced about this time, of substituting for consecrated wine, in the Communion of the faithful, ordinary wine into which a few drops of the consecrated wine had been poured. According to the "Ordo Romanus Primus", which in its present form dates from the ninth century, this usage was followed at the pontifical Mass in Rome (see Mabillon, P.L., LXXVIII, 875, 882, 903). It was adopted also in several other churches (Dom Martène, op. cit., I, ix). Some theologians of the period held with Amalarius of Metz; (d. 837) (De Eccl. off., I, 15, P.L., CV, 1032) that in this case the common wine received a certain consecration by the infusion of the consecrated drops; but the majority, including St. Bernard (Ep. lxix, 2, P.L., CLXXXII, 181), denied that there was any consecration in the proper sense, or that the reception of this chalice was strictly speaking the reception of the Precious Blood.

(5) The practice of the intinctio Panis, mentioned above, which is the last disciplinary variation to be noticed during this period, was already forbidden by the Council of Braga in 675 (Mansi, XI, 155), but, as from the "Micrologus" (xix, P.L., CLI, 989 sq.), was reintroduced in the eleventh century. It was condemned once more by the Council of Clermont (1095) under the presidency of Urban II, but with the limitation "nisi per necessitatem et per cautelam" (Mansi, XX, 818). The exception "per cautelam" allows the intinctio when it might be necessary as a precaution against the spilling of the Precious Blood, but the later prohibition of Paschal II (Ep. 535, P.L..CLXIII, 442) makes an exception only in "parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt". Notwithstanding these prohibitions the practice survived in many places, as we learn from Robert Pulleyn (d. 1146; Sent. VIII, iii, P.L., CLXXXVI, 964), who condemns it. Its prohibition is renewed as late as 1175 by a Council of London or Westminster (Hefele, op. cit., v, 688). There is no evidence of the intinctio in the East during the first ten centuries, but its existence in the eleventh century is one of the grounds of reproach advanced by Cardinal Humbert (d. 1061) against the Greeks. (Adv. Grec. calumnias, 33, B.L., CXLII, 967 sq.). According to Dom Martène (d.1739) the practice still existed in the East in his own time (op. cit., I, 13); while th custom of pouring some of the Precious Blood on the consecrated bread, which was then dried by heating and reserved during a whole year for the Communion of the sick, may be considered as a kind of intinctio. This latter custom was prohibited by Benedict XIV for the Italo-Greeks in 1752, but the usage, where it existed among them, of receiving the Host on a spoon with some drops of the Precious Blood, was allowed to be retained (Gasparri, op. cit., II, 1177).

It is abundantly clear from this brief survey of disciplinary variations during the first twelve centuries that church never regarded Communion under both kinds as a matter of Divine precept.

Since the Twelfth Century

The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur", he says "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.

III. THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION

The definition of the Council of Trent, to the effect that the communicant under one kind is deprived of no grace necessary for salvation (see I), was intended merely to negative the Utraquist contention, and is not to be understood as implying that Communion under one kind involves incompleteness of sacramental causality or a curtailment of sacramental grace. The council had no thought of deciding this point, which had been held to be an open question by theologians since the twelfth century and has continued to be treated as such down to our own day. Without attempting to sketch the history of the discussion, we will state here very briefly the ultimate form which the question has assumed and the opposing answers that have been given.

It is a recognized principle in sacramental theology that the sacraments cause what they signify, and the present discussion turns upon the interpretation of this principle in reference to the Holy Eucharist. Does the principle mean, not merely that the external rites are intended to signify, in a sufficiently distinctive way, the special graces they were instituted to confer, but that their efficiency in the production of grace is measured by the decree of clearness (where decrees are admissible) with which the sacramental signification is expressed? In the Eucharist grace is symbolized as spiritual refection or aliment, after the analogy of corporal nourishment; and this signification is admittedly expressed with greater clearness in the distinct reception of both species than in Communion in one kind. Are we to hold, therefore, that Communion sub utraque, being a more perfect symbol of a complete refection, conters a fuller degree of sacramental grace than Communion under one kind, or in other words, that by Divine institution there is a twofold causality or two distinct lines of causality in the Eucharist, corresponding to the two modes of reception, and that both lines of causality are required for the complete production of its fruits? A minority of the great theologians have answered this question in the affirmative, e.g. Vasquez (in III, Q. lxxx, a.12, disp. ccxv, c.ii), De Lugo (De Sac Euch. disp. xii, iii, 68 sq.), the Salmanticenses (De. Euch. Sac., disp. x, 52 sq.) Arguing on the lines indicated these theologians hold that per se Communion under both kinds confers more grace than Communion under one kind, and admit that the modern discipline of the Church withdraws this opportunity of more abundant grace from the faithful. But in doing so it inflicts they maintain, no notable spiritual privation, withholding no grace that is even remotely necessary for salvation; while, indirectly, the many advantages resulting from this discipline, particularly the increased reverence for the sacrament which it secures and the additional opportunities for frequent Communion which it provides, more than make up for whatever loss is involved. The majority of the theologians, however, rightly deny that Communion under one kind involves per se any loss or curtailment of sacramental grace. St. Thomas (III, Q. lxxx, a. 12, ad 3) and St. Bonaventure (In Sent. IV, XI, punct. ii, a. 1, q. 2) may fairly be claimed for this view, which is defended by Cajetan (In III, q. lxxx, a. 12, II), Dominicus Soto (In Sent. IV, XII, q. i.a. l2, II), Bellarmine (De Sac. Euch., IV, 33), Suarez (In III, q. lxxix, a. 8, disp. lxiii, VI, 8, sq.), Sylvius (In III, q. lxxx, a. 12, q. 2), Gonet (De Sac. Euch. disp. viii, 4, 11, 69), and a host of later writers. While admitting that the sacraments cause what they signify, these theologians deny that the extent of their causality is dependent on the mode or degree of perfection in which this signification is realized, or that there is any ground for distinguishing a twofold causality in the Eucharist depending on the twofold manner of reception. There is all the more reason for denying this in the case of the Holy Eucharist, since both the Body and Blood of Christ are really present and the complete refection intended by Christ are really received, under either species alone; and since, moreover, in the production of whatever grace is given, in additon to the grace of mere presence the more important cause is Christ Himself in His sacred humanity personally present in the recipient. Must we hold that Christ limited the grace-giving efficacy of His invisible presence so as to make it dependent on the accidental mode in which that presence is visibly symbolized rather than on the presence itself? Or that He curtailed the spiritually nutritive effects of what is de facto complete as an aliment and, as such, is sufficiently symbolized by either species, merely because the physical analogy in the manner of reception is not reproduced as literally and completely as it might be? Even in the natural order we do not always insist on the distinction between eating and drinking in reference to our bodily refection, and in the spiritual and supernatural sphere, where there is question of the soul's refection by Divine grace, it is surely an overstraining of the law of sacramental symbolism to urge that distinction as insistently as do theologians of the first opinion. Such briefly is the line of argument by which the common opinion is supported. It only remains to add that in this opinion the reception of the chalice may augment, per accidens, the grace of the sacrament, by securing a longer continuance of the species and thereby of the Real Presence, and by helping to prolong or renew the fervent dispositions of the recipient.

P.J. TONER

Communism

(Lat. communis.)

In its more general signification communism refers to any social system in which all property, or at least all productive property, is owned by the group, or community, instead of by individuals. Thus understood it comprises communistic anarchism, socialism, and communism in the strict sense. Communistic anarchism (as distinguished from the philosophic variety) would abolish not only private property, but political government. Socialism means the collective ownership and management not of all property, but only of the material agencies of production. Communism in the strict sense demands that both production-goods, such as land, railways, and factories, and consumption-goods, such as dwellings, furniture, food, and clothing, should be the property of the whole community. Previous to the middle of the nineteenth century the term was used in its more general sense, even by socialists. Marx and Engels called the celebrated document in which they gave to socialism its first "scientific" expression, the "Communist Manifesto". They could scarcely do otherwise, since the word Socialism was used for the first time in the year 1833, in England. Before long, however, most of the followers of the new movement preferred to call their economic creed Socialism and themselves Socialists. To-day no socialist who believes that individuals should be allowed to retain ownership of consumption-goods would class himself as a communist. Hence the word is at present pretty generally employed in the narrower sense. Its use to designate merely common ownership of capital is for the most part confined to the uninformed, and to those who seek to injure socialism by giving it a bad name.

Communism in the strict sense is also distinguished from socialism by the fact that it usually connotes a greater degree of common life. In the words of the Rev. W.D.P. Bliss, "socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; communism, on life in common" ("Handbook of Socialism", p. 12). Communism aims, therefore, at a greater measure of equality than socialism. It would obtain more uniformity in the matter of marriage, education, food, clothing, dwellings, and the general life of the community. Hence the various attempts that have been made by small groups of persons living a common life to establish common ownership of industry and common enjoyment of its products, have generally been described as experiments in communism. In fact socialism, in its proper sense of ownership and operation of capital-instruments by the entire democratic State, has never been tried anywhere. This calls to mind the further distinction that communism, even as a present-day ideal, implies the organization of industry and life by small federated communities, rather than by a centralized State. William Morris thus distinguishes them, and hopes that socialism will finally develop into communism ("Modern Socialism", edited by R.C.K. Ensor, p. 88). Combining all these notes into a formal definition, we might say that complete communism means the common ownership of both industry and its products by small federated communities, living a common life.

HISTORY

The earliest operation of the communistic principle of which we have any record, took place in Crete about 1300 b.c. All the citizens were educated by the State in a uniform way, and all ate at the public tables. According to tradition, it was this experiment that moved Lycurgus to set up his celebrated regime in Sparta. Under his rule, Plutarch informs us, there was a common system of education, gymnastics, and military training for all the youth of both sexes. Public meals and public sleeping apartments were provided for all the citizens. The land was redistributed so that all had equal shares. Although marriage existed, it was modified by a certain degree of promiscuity in the interest of race-culture. The principles of equality and common life were also enforced in many other matters. As Plutarch says, "no man was at liberty to live as he pleased, the city being like one great camp where all had their stated allowance". In several other respects, however, the regime of Lycurgus fell short of normal communism: though the land was equally distributed it was privately owned; the political system was not a democracy but a limited monarchy, and later an oligarchy; and the privileges of citizenship and equality were not enjoyed by the entire population. The Helots, who performed all the disagreeable work, were slaves in the worst sense of that term. Indeed, the purpose of the whole organization was military and political rather than economic and social. As Lycurgus was inspired by the Cretan experiment, so Plato was impressed by the achievement of Lycurgus. His "Republic" describes an ideal commonwealth in which there was to be community of property, meals, and even of women. The State was to control education, marriage, births, the occupation of the citizens, and the distribution and enjoyment of goods. It would enforce perfect equality of conditions and careers for all citizens and for both sexes. Plato's motive in outlining this imaginary social order was individual welfare, not State aggrandizement. He wanted to call the attention of the world to a State which was unique in that it was not composed of two classes constantly at war with each other, the rich and the poor. But his model commonwealth was to have slaves.

The communistic principle governed for a time the lives of the first Christians of Jerusalem. In the fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we learn that none of the brethren called anything that he possessed his own; that those who had houses and lands sold them and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, who distributed "to everyone according as he had need". Inasmuch as they made no distinction between citizens and slaves, these primitive Christians were in advance of the communism of Plato. Their communism was, moreover, entirely voluntary and spontaneous. The words of St. Peter to Ananias prove that individual Christians were quite free to retain their private property. Finally, the arrangement did not long continue, nor was it adopted by any of the other Christian bodies outside of Jerusalem. Hence the assertion that Christianity was in the beginning communistic is a gross exaggeration. And the claim that certain Fathers of the Church, notably Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostum, and Jerome, condemned all private property and advocated communism, is likewise unwarranted. Most of the religious, that is, ascetic and monastic orders and communities which have existed, both within and without the Christian fold, exhibit some of the features of communism. The Buddhist monks in India, the Essenes in Judea, and the Therapeutæ in Egypt, all excluded private ownership and led a common life. The religious communities of the Catholic Church have always practised common ownership of goods, both productive (whenever they possessed these) and non-productive. Their communism differs, however, from that of the economic communists in that its primary object is not and never has been social reform or a more just distribution of goods. The spiritual improvement of the individual member and the better fulfilment of their charitable mission, such as instructing the young or caring for the sick and infirm, are the ends that they have chiefly sought. These communities insist, moreover, that their mode of life is adapted only to the few. For these reasons we find them always apart from the world, making no attempt to bring in any considerable portion of those without, and observing celibacy. One important feature of economic communism is wanting to nearly all religious communities, namely, common ownership and management of the material agents of production from which they derive their sustenance. In this respect they are more akin to wage-earning bodies than to communistic organizations.

During the Middle Ages communism was held, and in various degrees practised, by several heretical sects. In this they professed to imitate the example of the primitive Christians. Their communism was, therefore, like that of the monastic orders, religious rather than economic. On the other hand, the motive of the religious orders was Christ's counsel to seek perfection. Chief among the communistic heretical sects were: the Catharists, the Apostolics, the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, the Hussites, the Moravians, and the Anabaptists. None of them presents facts of any great importance to the student of communism. The next notable event in the history of communism is the appearance of St. Thomas More's "Utopia" (1516). The purpose of this romantic account of an ideal commonwealth was economic, not military or religious. The withdrawal of large tracts of land from cultivation to be used for sheep-raising, the curtailment of the tenant's rights to the common, and the rise in rents had already begun to produce that insecurity, poverty, and pauperism which later on became so distressing in England, and which still constitute a most perplexing problem. By way of contrast to these conditions, More drew his ideal picture of the State of Utopia. In his conception of industrial conditions, needs, and tendencies, More was ages ahead of his time. "I can have", he says, "no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out: first, that they may without danger preserve all that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please." This reads more like an outburst from some radical reformer of the twentieth century than the testimony of a state chancellor of the early sixteenth. In "Utopia" all goods are held and enjoyed in common, and all meals are taken at the public tables. But there is no community of wives. The disagreeable work is done by slaves, but the slaves are all convicted criminals. Concerning both the family and the dignity and rights of the individual, "Utopia" is, therefore, on higher ground than the "Republic". There are several other descriptions of ideal States which owe their inspiration to "Utopia". The most important are: "Oceana" (1656) by James Harrington; "The City of the Sun" (1625) by Thomas Campanella (q.v.); and Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis" (1629). None of them has been nearly so widely read nor so influential as their prototype. Campanella, who was a Dominican monk, represents the authorities of "The City of the Sun" as compelling the best-developed women to mate with the best-developed men, in order that the children may be as perfect as possible. Children are to be trained by the State not by the parents, for they "are bred for the preservation of the species and not for individual pleasure".

The comprehensive criticism of, and revolt against social institutions carried on by French writers in the eighteenth century naturally included theories for the reconstruction of the economic order. Gabriel de Mably (Doutes proposés aux philosophes économiques, 1768) who seems to have borrowed partly from Plato and partly from Rousseau, declared that community of goods would secure equality of condition and the highest welfare of the race; but he shrank from advocating this as a practical remedy for the ills of his own time. Morelly (Code de la nature, 1755) agreed with Rousseau that all social evils were due to institutions, and urged the ownership and management of all property and industry by the State. Both de Mably and Morelly were apostate priests. Morelly's views were adopted by one of the French Revolutionists, F. N. Baboeuf, who was the first modern to take practical steps toward the formation of a communistic society. His plans included compulsory labour on the part of all, and public distribution of the product according to individual needs. To convert his theories into reality, he founded the "Society of Equals" (1796) and projected an armed insurrection; but the conspirators were soon betrayed and their leader guillotined (1797). Count Henri de Saint-Simon, whose theories received their final shape in his "Nouveau Christianisme" (1825), did not demand common ownership of all property. Hence he is looked upon as the first socialist rather than as a communist. He was the first to emphasize the division of modern society into employers and workingmen, and the first to advocate a reconstruction of the industrial and political order on the basis of labour and in the particular interest of the working classes. According to his view, the State should become the directer of industry, assigning tasks in proportion to capacity and rewards in proportion to work. He is also a socialist rather than a communist in his desire that reforms should be brought about by the central Government, instead of by local authority or voluntary associations. Charles Fourier (Traité de l'association domestique-agricole, 1822) did not even ask for the abolition of all capital. Yet he was more of a communist than Saint-Simon because his plans were to be carried out by the local communities, to which he gave the name of "phalanxes", and because the members were to live a common life. All would dwell in one large building called the "phalansterie". Tasks were to be assigned with some regard to the preferences of the individual, but there were to be frequent changes of occupation. Every worker would get a minimum wage adequate to a comfortable livelihood. The surplus product would be divided among labour, capital, and talent, but in such a way that those doing the most disagreeable work would obtain the highest compensation. Marriage would be terminable by the parties themselves. An attempt to establish a phalanx at Versailles in 1832 resulted in complete failure.

Etienne Cabet drew up a communistic programme in his "Voyage en Icarie" (1840), which was modelled upon the work of Sir Thomas More. He would abolish private property and private education, but not marriage nor the family life. Goods were to be produced and distributed by the community as a whole, and there was to be complete equality among all its members. In 1848 he emigrated with a band of his disciples to America, and established the community of Icaria in Texas. In 1849 they moved to the abandoned Mormon settlement of Nauvoo, Illinois. Here the community prospered for several years, until the usual solvent appeared in the shape of internal dissension. In 1856 the small minority that sided with Cabet settled at Cheltenham, near St. Louis, while the greater number moved to Southern Iowa, where they established a new community to which they gave the old name of Icaria. The latter settlement flourished until 1878, when there began a final series of disruptions, secessions, and migrations. The last band of Icarians was dissolved in 1895. At that time the community numbered only twenty-one members; in Nauvoo there were five hundred. Icaria has been called "the most typical experiment ever made in democratic communism" and "more wonderful than any other similar colony, in that it endured so long without any dogmatic basis". The Icarians practised no religion. In his "Organisation du travail" (1840) Louis Blanc demanded that the State establish national workshops, with a view to ultimate State ownership and management of all production. After the Revolution of 1848 the French Government did introduce several national workshops, but it made no honest effort to conduct them according to the ideas of M. Blanc. They were all unsuccessful and short-lived. Like Saint-Simon, Louis Blanc was a socialist rather than a communist in his theories of social reorganization, property, and individual freedom. From his time forward all the important theories and movements concerning the reorganization of society, in the other countries of Europe as well as in France, fall properly under the head of socialism. The remainder of the history of communism describes events that occurred in the United States. In his "American Communities" William A. Hinds enumerates some thirty-five different associations in which communistic principles were either partially or wholly put into operation.

COMMUNISTIC SOCIETIES IN THE UNITED STATES

The Ephrata Community (Pennsylvania) was, with two unimportant exceptions, the earliest. It was founded in 1732 by Conrad Beissel, a German, who had for some years led the life of a religious hermit. Three men and two women who shared his views on the Sabbath were permitted to join him, and thus the six became a community. The members held property in common, laboured in common, lived in common, and observed complete equality of conditions. They regarded celibacy as preferable to the wedded state, and during the early years of the community the majority remained unmarried. Their primary aim, therefore, was religious and spiritual instead of social and economic. The community never had more than three hundred members; in 1900 it had only seventeen.

The most important communistic organization in the United States is that of the Shakers. Their first community was founded at Mt. Lebanon, N. Y., in 1787. At present there are thirty-five separate communities with a total membership of one thousand; once they aggregated five thousand. Like the Ephratans, the Shakers are a religious sect and live a community life for a religious purpose. The founders of their first American settlement were a band of English Quakers to whom the name Shakers was given because of their bodily agitations under the supposed influence of spiritual forces in their religious meetings. In the Shaker communities property is held in common (except in the ease of members who have not reached the Third, or Senior Order), meals are taken in common, there is a common hour for rising, modes of dress are uniform, and there are minute rules governing manners and conduct generally. While all members are on a footing of equality, the government is hierarchical rather than democratic. They make confession of sin before entering, observe celibacy, abstain from alcoholic drinks, discourage the use of tobacco, and endeavour to avoid "all worldly usages, manners, customs, loves and affections, which interpose between the individual citizen of the heavenly kingdom and his duties and privileges therein". Owing to its principles and practices, Shaker communism is as little suited to the generality of men as monasticism. Their membership is recruited mostly through religious revivals and the reception of homeless children. Nevertheless the community has not been a complete failure as regards those who have remained faithful to its life. "For more than a hundred years", they maintain, "they have lived prosperous, contented, happy lives, making their land bloom like the fairest garden; and during all these years have never spent among themselves a penny for police, for lawyers, for judges, for poor-houses, for penal institutions or any like 'improvements' of the outside world."

Two communities that had a considerable resemblance to each other were the Harmonists, established in Pennsylvania in 1805 by George Rapp, and the Separatists of Zoar, founded in 1818 by Joseph Baumeler in Ohio. Both communities were German, were religious rather than economic, held the same religious views, and practised celibacy. Early in their history the Separatists abandoned celibacy, but continued to regard it as a higher state than marriage. The Harmonists had at one time one thousand members, but by the year 1900 dissensions had reduced them to nine. The Separatists never numbered more than five hundred. They ceased to exist as a community in 1898. The New Harmony Community was established in 1825 on land in Indiana that had once been occupied by the Harmonists. Its founder was Robert Owen, a Welshman, who had managed with remarkable success the New Lanark mills in Scotland. He was the first to introduce the ten-hour day into factories and to refuse to employ very young children and pauper children. He also established the first infant schools in England. He made the village of New Lanark a model of good order, temperance, thrift, comfort, and contentment. He was a humanitarian and reformer who did not shrink from large sacrifices on behalf of his theories. Encouraged by the success of his efforts at New Lanark, and believing that men were good by nature and needed only the proper environment to become virtuous, strong, intelligent, and contented, he began to dream of a communism that should be world-wide. He would have all persons gathered into villages of between three hundred and two thousand souls, each of whom was to have from one-half to one and one-half acres of land. The dwellings of each village would be arranged in a parallelogram, with common kitchens, eating-houses, and schools in the centre. Individual property was to be abolished. Such were the plans that he intended to try for the first time in the community of New Harmony. Before the end of its first year this community had nine hundred souls and thirty thousand acres of land. Before two years had passed dissensions had arisen, two new communities had been formed by seceders, and the original community had been dissolved. Several other communistic settlements which owed their existence to the teaching and example of Owen, were established in different States, but none of them outlived New Harmony. Like the latter, they all expressly rejected any religious basis. This seems to have been one of the chief reasons for their early dissolution. Toward the end of his life Owen gave up his materialistic notions, and admitted the supreme importance of spiritual forces in the formation of sound character.

The Oneida Community of Oneida, N. Y., was founded in 1848 by J. H. Noyes. Its purpose was primarily religious, "the establishment of the kingdom of God". At one period it had five hundred members. For more than thirty years its members practised not only community of property and of life generally, but also of women, through their so-called "complex marriages". The rearing of children was partly a parental but chiefly a community function. In deference to public sentiment outside, the practice of "complex marriage" was in 1879 discontinued. They then divided themselves into two classes, "the married and the celibate, both legitimate but the last preferred". However, nearly all of them got married within a very short time. In 1881 the community was converted into a joint-stock company, the members owning individual shares. Financially, the new corporation has been a success, but most of its common-life features disappeared with "complex marriage".

Between 1840 and 1850 some thirty communities modelled upon the phalanxes of Fourier were established in different parts of the United States. Only one lasted longer than six years, and the great majority disappeared within three years. Their rise was due chiefly to the writings and efforts of an exceptionally able, cultured, and enthusiastic group of writers which included Horace Greeley, Albert Brisbane, George Ripley, Parke Goodwin, William Henry Channing, Charles A. Dana, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Elizabeth Peabody. The most notable of these experiments was the one at Brook Farm. Although it took the form of a joint-stock company, paying five per cent interest, it exemplified the principles of communism in many particulars. The industries were managed by the community and all the members took turns at the various tasks; all received the same wages, all were guaranteed support for themselves and their dependents, and all enjoyed the same advantages in the matter of food, clothing, and dwellings. For the first two years (1841-43) the life was charming; but the enterprise was not a success financially. In 1844 the organization was converted into a Fourieristic phalanx, which had an unsuccessful existence of a few brief months. Brook Farm failed thus early because it had too many philosophers and too few "hard-fisted toilers".

The Amana Community (Iowa) was begun in 1855 by a band of Germans who called themselves "True Inspirationists", on account of their belief that the inspiration of the Apostolic age is still vouchsafed to Christians. Their distinctive religious tenets reach back to the Pietists of the seventeenth century, but as an organization they began at Hesse, Germany, in 1714. They came to America to escape religious persecution, not to practise communism. According to their own testimony, the communistic feature was introduced solely as a means to a better Christian life. The community tolerates marriage but prefers celibacy. Those who marry suffer a decline in social standing, and are compelled to wait for some time before they can regain their former position. One of their "Rules for Daily Life" reads thus: "Fly from the society of woman-kind as much as possible, as a very highly dangerous magnet and magical fire." The families live separately, but eat in groups of from thirty-five to fifty. All property belongs to the community. In order the better to achieve their supreme purpose— and the imitation of Christ— life is very simple, and barren not only of luxury but of any considerable enjoyment. The Amana Community has for a long time been the largest community in existence, numbering between seventeen and eighteen hundred members. During sixty years the members of this community have lived in peace, comfort, and contentment, having neither lawyers, sheriffs, nor beggars.

None of the other communistic settlements of America presents features worthy of special mention. Of all the experiments made only the Amana Community and the Shakers survive. Societies like the Co-operative Brotherhood and the Equality Commonwealth of the State of Washington are examples of co-operation, or at most of socialism. Besides, they are all very young and very small.

GENERALIZATIONS DRAWN FROM COMMUNISTIC EXPERIMENTS

The history of communistic societies suggests some interesting and important generalizations.

First:

All but three of the American communities, namely those founded by Robert Owen, the Icarians, and the Fourieristic experiments, and absolutely all that enjoyed any measure of success, were organized primarily for religious ends under strong religious influences, and were maintained on a basis of definite religious convictions and practices. Many of their founders were looked upon as prophets. The religious bond seems to have been the one force capable of holding them together at critical moments of their history. Mr. Hinds, who is himself a firm believer in communism, admits that there must be unity of belief either for or against religion. The importance of the spiritual and ascetic elements is further shown by the fact that nearly all the more successful communities either enjoined, or at least preferred, celibacy. If communism needs the ascetic element to this extent it is evidently unsuited for general adoption.

Second:

It would seem that where religion and asceticism are not among the primary ends, community of wives as well as of property easily suggests itself to communists as a normal and logical feature of their system. Even Campanella declared that "all private property is acquired and improved for the reason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and children". Speaking of the decline of the Oneida Community, Mr. Hinds says: "The first step out of communism was taken when 'mine and thine' were applied to husband and wife; then followed naturally an exclusive interest in children; then the desire to accumulate individual property for their present and future use." The founder of this community was of opinion that if the ordinary principles of marriage are maintained, communistic associations will present greater temptations to unlawful love than ordinary society. Communism therefore seems to face the Scylla of celibacy and the Charybdis of promiscuity.

Third:

All the American communities except those founded by Owen, were composed of picked and select souls who were filled with enthusiasm and willing to make great sacrifices for their ideal. Owen admitted recruits indiscriminately, but keenly regretted it afterwards; for he recognized it as one of the chief causes of premature failure. Moreover, the other communities separated themselves from and discouraged contact with the outside world. Most of the deserters were members who had violated this injunction, and become enamoured of worldly ways.

Fourth:

The success attained by the American communities was in a very large measure due to exceptionally able, enthusiastic, and magnetic leaders. As soon as these were removed from leadership their communities almost invariably began to decline rapidly. This fact and the facts mentioned in the last paragraph add weight to the conclusions drawn from the first two, namely that communism is utterly unsuited to the majority.

Fifth:

It is possible for small groups of choice spirits, especially when actuated by motives of religion and asceticism, to maintain for more than a century a communistic organization in contentment and prosperity. The proportion of laziness is smaller and the problem of getting work done simpler than is commonly assumed. And the habit of common life does seem to root out a considerable amount of human selfishness.

Finally:

The complete equality sought by communism is a well-meant but mistaken interpretation of the great moral truths, that, as persons and in the sight of God, all human beings are equal; and that all have essentially the same needs and the same ultimate destiny. In so far as they are embodied in the principle of common ownership, these truths have found varied expressions in various countries and civilizations. Many economic historians maintain that common ownership was everywhere the earliest form of land tenure. It still prevails after a fashion in the country districts of Russia. Within the last half-century, the sphere of common or public ownership has been greatly extended throughout almost all of the Western world, and it is certain to receive still wider expansion in the future. Nevertheless, the verdict of experience, the nature of man, and the attitude of the Church, all assure us that complete communism will never be adopted by any considerable section of any people. While the Church sanctions the principle of voluntary communism for the few who have a vocation to the religious life, she condemns universal, compulsory, or legally enforced communism, inasmuch as she maintains the natural right of every individual to possess private property. She has reprobated communism more specifically in the Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" of Pope Leo XIII. For the theories condemned in that document under the name of socialism certainly include communism as described in these pages. See COLLECTIVISM, SOCIALISM; PROPERTY.

PLATO, Republic (London, 1892); CATHREIN, Socialism, tr. from the German by GETTELMANN (New York, 1904); PÖHLMANN, Geschichte des antiken Communismus und Sozialismus (Munich, 1893-1901); CAPART, La propriété individuelle et le collectivisme (Namur, 1898); KAUTSKY, Communism in Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation (London. 1897); MORLEY, Ideal Commonwealths (London, 1885), comprising PLUTARCH'S Lycurgus, MORE'S Utopia, BACON'S New Atlantis, CAMPANELLA'S, City of the Sun, and HALL'S Mundus alter et idem; HARRINGTON, Commonwealth of Oceana (London, 1887); LICHTENBERGER, Le socialisme au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1895); ELY, French and German Socialism (New York, 1883); NORDHOFF, Communistic Societies of the United States (New York, 1875); WOOLSEY, Communism and Socialism (New York, 1880); HINDS, American Communities (Chicago, 1902); STAMHAMMER, Bibl. des Sozialismus und Communismus (Jena, 1893-1900).

JOHN A. RYAN

Como

DIOCESE OF COMO (COMENSIS).

Como is an important town in the province of Lombardy (Northern Italy), picturesquely situated on Lake Como, the ancient Lacus Larius. The city is of Celtic origin and was called Comum. In 195 B.C. it became a Romany colony. Destroyed by the Rhaetian Gauls, it was reconstructed by Pompeius Strabo and called Novocomm. It shared the vicissitudes of the surrounding region. In the tenth century the Bishops of Como were also its temporal lords. In the eleventh century the city became a free commune. In 1153 Como was devastated by the Milanese on account of its attachment to Frederick Barbarossa, who rebuilt the city in 1158. Then followed the rule of the Rusca family. In 1355 Franchin Rusca freely ceded the town to the Visconti, from which time it shared the fortune of the Duchy of Milan. Como is now the centre of the silk industry in Italy, and according to the census of 1901 had a population of 38,902. It has been the birthplace of many famous men, among them the elder and the younger Pliny, the historian Paulus Jovius, Pope Innocent XI, and the physicist Volta. Local legend credits the conversion of Como to the apostolate of St. Hermagoras of Aquileia (died c. 70). Until 1528 Como was, indeed, a suffragan of Aquileia (later of Venice) and followed the Aquileian Rite. The first known bishop was St. Felix, ordained by St. Ambrose in 379, and it is not improbable that he was the first bishop. Many Bishops of Como are venerated as saints: St. Probinus (391); St. Amantius (420); St. Abundius (450), sent as legate to the Council of Chalcedon by St. Leo the Great; St. Consul (469); St. Exuperantius (495); St. Eusebius (512); St. Eutychius (525); St. Euplius (532); St. Flavianus (535); St. Prosper (560); St. John Orcus (565); St. Agrippinus (568); St. Rubianus (586); St. Martinianus (615); St. Victorinus (628), opponent of Arianism as propagated by the Lombards; Alberico (1010), founder of the Abbey of Sant'Abondio; Rainaldo (1061), expelled by Henry IV for his loyalty to Gregory VII; Guglielmo della Torre (1204), builder of many churches and founder of a hospital; Benedetto Asinaga (1328), who fled from the persecution of the Rusca, Lords of Como; Lucchino Borsano (1396), who began the new cathedral; the learned reformer, Gian Antonio Volpi (1559). The cathedral of Como is a splendid monument of Christian art. It was begun in 1396, and was completed only in 1595; later the cupola and some small chapels were added (1730-44). In 1528 Como was placed under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan. The diocese has a population of 340,000, has 325 parishes, 3 religious houses of men and 12 of women.

U. BENIGNI

Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

A Catholic secret society which included among its members many Catholic celebrities of the seventeenth century. It was founded in March, 1630, at the Convent of the Capuchins in the Faubourg Saint-Honore by Henri de Levis, Duc de Ventadour, who had just escorted his wife to the Convent of Mont-Carmel; Henri de Pichery, officer of Louis XIII's household; Jacques Adhemar de Monteil de Grignan, a future bishop, and Philippe d'Angoumois, the Capuchin. Amongst those who soon joined it, should be mentioned Pere Suffren, a Jesuit, confessor to Louis XIII and Marie de' Medici; the son and grandson of Coligny, the Protestant admiral, and Charles de Condren, General of the Oratorians. In 1631 this association was called the Company of the Most Blessed Sacrament. It was organized under the authority of a board composed of nine members, changed every three months, and which included a superior, usually a layman, and a spiritual director who was a priest. The associates met weekly and their organization was simultaneously a pious confraternity, a charitable society, and a militant association for the defence of the Church.

The company was an absolutely secret one. Louis XIII covertly encouraged it but it never wished to have the letters patent that would have rendered it legal. Archbishop Gondi of Paris refused his blessing to the company although, in 1631, Louis XIII wrote him a personal letter requesting him to confer it. The Brief obtained from the pope in 1633 by the Count de Brassan, one of the members, was of no importance and the company, eager to secure a new one, was granted only a few indulgences which it would not accept, as it did not wish to be treated as a simple confraternity. Guido Bagni, nuncio from 1645 to 1656 often attended the sessions of the company but its existence was never regularly acknowledged by an official document from Rome. The rule of secrecy obliged members "not to speak of the company to those who do not belong to it and never to make known the names of the individuals composing it. New members were elected by the board and it was soon decided that no congréganiste, i.e. member of a lay congregation directed by ecclesiastics, could be eligible. Matters of an especially delicate nature were not discussed at the weekly meetings, these being frequently attended by a hundred members, but were reserved for the investigation of the board. The company printed nothing and the keeping of written minutes was conducted with the utmost caution. There were fifty important branches outside of Paris, about thirty being unknown even to the bishops. Among other members were the Prince de Conti, the Marechal de Schomberg, the Baron de Renty, Magistrates Lamoignon, de Mesnes, and Le Fèvre d'Ormesson; Alain de Solminihac, Bishop of Cahors, now declared Venerable; St. Vincent de Paul, Olier, and Bossuet. The association laboured zealously to correct abuses among the clergy and in monastery to insure good behaviour in the churches, to procure missions for country parishes, and it had the honour of urging the establishment of a Seminary of Foreign Missions for the evangelizing of infidels. It also endeavoured to reform the morals of the laity by encouraging effective crusade of the Marquis de Salignae-Fénelon against duelling. Moreover, it was interested in the care of the poor, the improvement of hospitals, and the administration of galleys and prisons; and that the poor might have legal advice, it created today known as the secrétariats du peuple. It protected the fraternities of shoemakers and tailors organized by the Baron de Renty and assisted St. Vincent de Paul in most of his undertakings. In 1652 when Louis XIV, conqueror of the Fonde re-entered Paris and the city was flood with peasants, fugitive religious, hungry priests, the members of the company multiplied their generous deeds, demanded alms from their fellow-members outside of Paris, sent priests to hear the confessions of the sick decimated by war, founded parish societies for the relief of the poor, and established at Paris a general storehouse stocked with provisions, clothing, and agricultural implements to be distributed among the impoverished peasants. At that time the company spent 380,000 livres (equal 300,000 dollars) in charity each year. Finally, it was instrumental in bringing about the ordinance establishing the General Hospital where Christophe du Plessis, the magistrate, and St. Vincent de Paul organized the hospitals for mendicants.

Even those historians to whom the secret character of this association is obnoxious, give due credit to its admirable charities, but they attack its action in regard to Protestants. The company laboured diligently to increase conversions and organized the preaching of missions for Protestants in Lorraine, Dauphine, and Limousin and founded establishments in Paris, Sedan, Metz, and Puy for young converts from Protestantism. Moreover, it strove to suppress the outrages perpetrated by Protestants against the Catholic religion and opposed the oppression of Catholics by Protestants in a Protestant city like La Rochelle. Finally, without seeking the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the Company nevertheless remained constantly on the alert, lest any concession be made to Protestants beyond what the formal text of the edict demanded and its members sent documents to Jean Filleau, a Poitiers lawyer, who for twenty-five years issued "Catholic decisions" from a juridical point of view, on the interpretation of the Edict of Nantes. The protestation of the general assembly of the clergy in 1656 against the infringement of the edict by Protestants, was the outgrowth of a long documental work prepared by the members. In 1660, Lechassier who was Maître des Comptes and also one of the company, forwarded to all the country branches a questionnaire, i.e. a series of questions soaked with a view to helping the inquiry, of thirty-one articles on the infringement of the Edict of Nantes by Protestants. The answers were collected by Forbin-Janson, Bishop of Digne, who took active part in the assembly of clergy, the result being that commissaries were sent into the provinces for the purpose of setting right these abuses. But, in its own turn, the company violated the Edict of Nantes (of which Art. 27 declared Huguenots wholly eligible to public office), and, by secret manoeuvring, one day prevented twenty-five young Protestants from being received as attorneys at the Parlement of Paris. "The members thought they were doing right", explained Père de la Briere "nevertheless, if we consider not their intention, but the very nature of their act and of their procedure, it is impossible to doubt that they were guilty of an iniquity". According to the testimony of Père Rapin and the Count d'Argenson, these proceedings of the Company were the starting-point of the policy that was to culminate in 1685 in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The year 1660 witnessed the decline of the company. In consequence of incidents that had occurred at Caen, it was vigorously attacked in a libel by Charles du Four, Abbot of Aulnay, and denounced to Cardinal Mazarin by François Harlay de Champvallon Archbishop of Rouen. On 13 December, 1660, the members held a last general meeting at which, amid expressions of regret and deep emotion, it was decided to suspend their Thursday sessions and to add "ten or twelve elders" to the members of the board so that the company might continue to act provisionally; then these elders and the board selected eight individuals who were to correspond with the country branches one of the eight being Bossuet. On 13 December, 1660, Parliament issued a decree prohibiting all illicit assemblies, confraternities, congregations, and communities but Lamoignon, a member of the company and the first president, succeeded in preventing it from being designated by name. It seems that the meeting of the board and the elders held regularly enough in 1664 to be instrumental in obtaining the interdiction of "Tartuffe", ceased almost altogether in 1665. The General Hospital and the Seminary of Foreign Missiors continued to exist as magnificent legacies of this association which Mazarin and many hostile historians who came after him, scornfully called the "Cabal of Devotees".

GEORGES GOYAU

Compensation

Compensation, as considered in the present article denotes the price paid for human exertion or labour. Wherever men have been free to sell their labour they have regarded its compensation as a matter that involved questions of right and wrong. This conviction has been shared by mankind generally, at least in Christian countries. At the beginning of the fourth century, the Emperor Diocletian issued an edict which fixed the maximum prices for the sale of all goods, and appointed a legal schedule of wages for nineteen different classes of workingmen. In the preamble of the edict the emperor declares that his motive is to establish justice among his people (Levasseur, "Classes ouvrières avant 1789", I, 112-114). Throughout the Middle Ages and down almost to the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was considerable legal regulation of wages in most of the countries of Europe. This practice indicated a belief that the compensation of labour ought to be brought under the rule of law and fairness, as these legislators conceived fair dealing.

The Fathers of the Church implicitly asserted the right of the labourer to sufficient compensation for the maintenance of his life when they declared that God wished the earth to be the common heritage of all men, and when they denounced as robbers the rich who refused to share their surplus goods with the needy. The theologians and canonists of the Middle Ages held that all commodities should be sold at that price which the social estimate regarded as just; but they insisted that in arriving at this estimate the community ought to take into account the utility, the scarcity, and the cost of production of the commodity. Inasmuch as the cost of production at that time was chiefly labour-cost, or wages, a just price for goods would necessarily include a just price for the labour that produced the goods. St. Thomas reflects the common view when he says that labour as well as goods should bring a just price (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. cxiv, a. 1). Langenstein, in the fourteenth century, is more specific; for he declares that anyone can ascertain the just price of the wares that he has to sell by referring to the cost of living of one in his station in life (De Contractibus, Pt. I, cap. xii). Since the seller of the goods was generally the maker of them also, Langenstein's rule was equivalent to the doctrine that the compensation of the master-workman should be sufficient to furnish him a decent livelihood. And we know that his remuneration did not differ greatly from that of the journeyman. From the meagre accounts that have come down to us, we are probably justified in concluding, with Professor Brants, that these standards of compensation and the methods of enforcing them generally secured to the medieval labourer a livelihood which the notions of the time regarded as becoming (Théories économiques aux xiii ^e et xiv ^e siècles, p. 123). At the beginning of the seventeenth century we find such writers as Molina and Bonacina asserting that the customary compensation of a place is, generally speaking, just compensation, and assuming that the worker has a right to a living from his labour.

To-day Catholic teaching on compensation is quite precise as regards the just minimum. It may be summarized in these words of Pope Leo XIII in the famous Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (15 May, 1891), on the condition of the working classes: "there is a dictate of nature more ancient and more imperious than any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions, because an employer or contractor will give him no better, he is the victim of fraud and injustice." Shortly after the Encyclical appeared, Cardinal Goossens, the Archbishop of Mechlin, asked the Holy See whether an employer would do wrong who should pay a wage sufficient for the sustenance of the labourer himself but not for that of his family. An unofficial response came through Cardinal Zigliara, saying that such conduct would not be contrary to justice, but that it might sometimes violate charity, or natural righteousness — i. e. reasonable gratitiide. As a consequence of the teaching of Leo XIII, there has been widespread discussion, and there exists an immense literature among the Catholics of Europe and America concerning the minimum just wage. The present Catholic position may be summarized somewhat as follows: First, all writers of authority agree that the employer who can reasonably afford it is morally obliged to give all his employees compensation sufficient for decent individual maintenance, and his adult male employees the equivalent of a decent living not only for themselves but for their families; but not all place the latter part of the obligation under the head of strict justice. Second, some writers base this doctrine of a minimum just wage upon the principle of just price, according to which compensation should be equivalent to labour, while others declare that it is implicitly contained in the natural right of the labourer to obtain a decent livelihood in the only way that is open to him, namely, through his labour-contract and in the form of wages. The latter is undoubtedly the view of Leo XIII, as is evident from these words of the Encyclical: "It follows that each one has a right to procure what is required in order to live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than by work and wages."

Authoritative Catholic teaching does not go beyond the ethical minimum, nor declare what is completely just compensation. It admits that full and exact justice will frequently award the worker more than the minimum equivalent of decent living, but it has made no attempt to define precisely this larger justice with regard to any class of wage-earners. And wisely so; for, owing to the many distinct factors of distribution involved, the matter is exceedingly complicated and difficult. Chief among these factors are from the side of the employer, energy expended, risk undergone, and interest on his capital; from the side of the labourer, needs, productivity, efforts, sacrifices, and skill; and from the side of the consumer, fair prices. In any completely just system of compensation and distribution all these elements would be given weight; hut in what proportion? Should the man who produces more than his fellow-worker always receive a larger reward, regardless of the effort that he has made? Should skill be more highly compensated than work that is degrading and disagreeable? Even if all men were agreed as to the different factors of distribution and their relative importance, from the side of capital and labour, there would remain the problem of justice to the consumer. For example, ought a part of the benefits arising from improvements in the productive processes to go to him? or should they all be appropriated by the agents of production? Pope Leo XIII showed is practical wisdom when, instead of dealing in detail with this question, he insisted strongly on the practice of arbitration. When wage-disputes are submitted to fair arbitration, all the criteria and factors of distribution above enumerated are usually taken into account, and accorded weight in conformity with practical justice. This is not, indeed, the same as ideal justice but in most cases it will approximate that goal as closely as is feasible in a world that is not absolutely perfect.

LEVASSEUR, Les classes Ouvrières en France avant 1789 (Paris, 1900); CAPART, La propriété individuelle et le collectivisme (Namur, 1898); BRANTS, Les théories économiques aux xiii ^e et xiv ^e siècles (Paris, 1895); GARNIER, De l'idée du juste prix (Paris, 1900); ASHLEY, English Economic History (London, 1893); PALGRAVE, Dictionary of Political Economy (New York, 1891), s. v. Government Regulation of Industry; LEO XIII, Encyclical, Rerum Novarum; VERMEERSCH, Quœstiones de Justitiâ (Bruges, 1901); POTTIER, De Jure et Justitiâ (Liège, 1900); MEYER ET AL., Die soziale Frage, reprinted from the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach; RYAN, A Living Wage (New York, 1906).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Occult Compensation

An extra-legal manner of recovering from loss or damage; the taking, by stealth and on one's private authority, of the value or equivalent of one's goods from a person who refuses to meet the demands of justice.

Considered strictly from the standpoint of commutative justice, although this proceeding may have on the surface all the appearance of theft, it is in reality the farthest removed from such. As defined, it implies a debtor who is able, but unwilling, to restore what he holds unjustly and a creditor who has an opportunity to recover possession of what is his own certain due. Since the effect as well as the purpose is solely to make a wrong cease, the transfer brought about by this method of self-protection is manifestly in keeping with equity and right. Thus occult compensation is based on the right of self-defence. It is clear that such dealing-out of justice to oneself without the sanction of public authority may become a course gravely prejudicial to public and social order and open to all manner of abuses and dangers. But the evil is no less real and pernicious, if, while avoiding this extreme, one runs to the opposite, and denies principles which safeguard natural rights of the individual and protect the weak against the constant danger of oppression from the strong. Catholic moralists steer clear of these two extremes and teach that it is licit, under certain conditions and with certain precautions, to have recourse to occult compensation.

In Doctor Bouquillon's scholarly article in the "Catholic University Bulletin" (1896), II, 50-61, it is proved not only that the doctrine is sound and reasonable, but that "it has been accepted by philosophers and jurists, as far, even, as the terminology in which it has been formulated by our theologians; that it has always been substantially the same since the days of St. Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, though in the course of time it has gained in clearness, and that when writings capable of pernicious influence have appeared they have been carefully weeded out."

The requisite conditions may be reduced to three. First, the right of the creditor must be certain. Then respect for law and order demands that the authority of the law should be invoked whenever it is possible and recourse to established justice does not involve difficulties and losses out of all proportion with the gain to be derived. When laws operating through the regular channels fail to protect and are helpless to remove the evil of injustice, respect for them should not prevent one from taking one's own by extraordinary means. Finally, provision should be made against the event of a later settlement by the debtor or his lawful heirs, which would necessitate restitution; and every reasonable effort should be made to avoid scandal or other evils of accusations, distrust, etc., to which cause may be given through ignorance of the moral value of such methods. When the danger to the community is thus minimized as far as it is humanly possible, legal justice honoured as far as it is entitled to honour, and the necessity of justice and right urgent, it is lawful in conscience, according to our accredited moralists, to avail oneself of the theory of occult compensation. It remains, however, that such cases are rare, that it is still more rarely within the competence of the ordinary individual to decide his own case without the advice of a prudent and disinterested counsellor, and that occult compensation should never be advised save in exceptional circumstances, on account of its potency for havoc in the hands of the ignorant or unscrupulous. But disregard for any or all of these precautions, while offending against legal, does not violate commutative justice, nor entail the duty of restitution, if the essential right is present.

LIGUORI, Theol. Mor. (Paris, 1845), Lib. IV, 521; DE LUGO, Disputat. de just. et jure (Paris, 1868), 16; SCAVINI, Theol. Mor. Univers., de Restitut. (Paris, 1867); BALLERINI, Opus Theol. Mor., De just. et jure (Prato, 1890); LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. Spec., De virtut. mor. (Freiburg, 1896); NOLDIN, Summa Theol. Mor., De sept. Decal. Prœc. (Innsbruck, 1906); GENICOT, Theol. Mor. Institut., De just. et jure (Louvain, 1905); SABETTI-BARRETT, Theol. Mor., De just. et jure (New York, 1906); KONINGS, Theol. Mor., De jure et just. (New York, 1877).

JOHN H. STAPLETON.

Privilege of Competency

(Lat. Privilegium Competentiœ)

(1) The competency of a cleric means his right to proper sustenance. When a parochial church has been incorporated with a collegiate institution or monastery and a vicar has been appointed to the cure of souls in the parish, the possessors of the benefice are obliged to give him the needful salary. Nor can the right to this competency be done away with by agreement. If a private contract be made by which a less sum is to be accepted, it will not bind the successor of the contracting vicar. Even if the contract be approved by public authority, it is not binding unless an amount sufficient for the proper support of the pastor be stipulated. The right to competency also has place when several simple benefices are united with a parish church. If the endowment is not sufficient for the necessary number of pastors, then recourse is to be had to firstfruits, tithes, and collections among the parishioners (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, de Ref.). It is the duty of the bishop to see that those who have the care of souls be provided with proper support. By the privilege of competency, the goods of a cleric, burdened with debt, cannot be attached or sold without leaving him sufficient means of support (Cap. 3, x., III, 23). A cleric loses this privilege, however, if he fraudulently contracts unnecessary debts, in abuse of the privilege. The civil law in some countries recognizes this right of competency. In Austria, while the property of a benefice cannot be attached, the revenues can, but only to such an extent that at least 300 or 210 florins, according to the rank of the benefice, must remain intact. In Germany, whatever is necessary for exercising the ministry is free from attachment. The civil laws of the United States and Great Britain make no exception for clerics.

(2) The term competency is also used for the sum total of the rights belonging to any ecclesiastical dignitary, as of the pope, bishops, etc. Objectively, such competency is determined by the various functions to which it extends, such as ordination, matrimony, and so forth.

AICHNER, Compend. Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895); FERRARIS, Biblioth. Prompta Canon. (Rome, 1886), II; LAURENTIUS, Instit. Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903).

WILLIAM H. W FANNING.

Complin

The term Complin (Compline) is derived from the Latin completorium, complement, and has been given to this particular Hour because Complin is, as it were, the completion of all the Hours of the day: the close of the day. The word was first used in this sense about the beginning of the sixth century by St. Benedict in his Rule (cc. xvi, xvii, xviii, and xlii), and he even uses the verb complere to signify Complin: "Omnes ergo in unum positi compleant"; "et exuentes a completorio" (xlii). The Hour of Complin, such as it now appears in the Roman Breviary, may be divided into several parts, viz.: the beginning or introduction, the psalmody, with its usual accompaniment of anthems, the hymn, the capitulum, the response, the evangelical canticle, the prayer, and the benediction.

The origin of Complin has recently given rise to considerable discussion among liturgists. General opinion, which is also that of Bäumer and Batiffol, ascribes the origin of this Hour to St. Benedict, in the beginning of the sixth century. It was St. Benedict who first gave it this name; he decided also that this Hour should consist of three psalms (4, 90, and 133) to be said without anthems, the hymn, the lesson, the versicle Kyrie eleison, the benediction, and the dismissal (ch. xvii and xviii). But Father Pargoire and, later still, A. Vandepitte oppose this opinion and seek a more ancient origin for this Hour. A text in Callinicus (between 447 and 450), first introduced in Father Pargoire's argument, informs us that between Vespers and the night Office there was celebrated in the East a canonical Hour called in this text prothypnia, because it preceded the first sleep, being nothing but what the Greeks of to-day call apodeipnon, on account of the meal it follows. However, in the thirty-seventh question of his rules, St. Basil, also, speaks of an intermediate Hour between Vespers and the night Office. Father Pargoire therefore disputes the assertion that St. Benedict was the originator of Complin, being rather disposed to trace its source to St. Basil. In the article mentioned Father Vandepitte confirms these conclusions; nevertheless he states, in the clearest terms, that it was not in Cæsarea in 375, but in his retreat in Pontus (358-362), that Basil established Complin, which Hour did not exist prior to his time, that is, until shortly after the middle of the fourth century. Dom Plaine also traced the source of Complin back to the fourth century, finding mention of it in a passage in Eusebius and in another in St. Ambrose, and also in Cassian. These passages have been critically examined, and Fathers Pargoire and Vandepitte have proved that before St. Basil's time the custom of reciting Complin was unknown. At any rate, even if these texts do not express all that Dom Plaine says they do, at least they bear witness to the private custom of saying a prayer before retiring to rest. If this was not the canonical Hour of Complin, it was certainly a preliminary step towards it. The same writers reject the opinion of Ladeuze and Dom Besse, both of whom believe that Complin had a place in the Rule of St. Pachomius, which would mean that it originated still earlier in the fourth century. It is not necessary to enter into this discussion, but it might be possible to conciliate these different sentiments by stating that, if it be an established fact that St. Basil instituted and organized the Hour of Complin for the East, as St. Benedict did for the West, there existed as early as the days of St. Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria the custom of reciting a prayer before sleep, in which practice we find the most remote origin of our Complin. But let the result of this discussion be what it may, it cannot be denied that St. Benedict invested the Hour of Complin with its liturgical character and arrangement, which were preserved in the Benedictine Order and almost completely adopted by the Roman Church; it is hardly to be believed, as Dom Plaine maintains, that the Hour of Complin, at least such as it now exists in the Roman Breviary, antedated the Benedictine Office. In default of other proof, it may be noted that the Benedictine Office gives evidence of a less advanced liturgical condition, as we have seen that it consists of a few very simple elements. The Roman Office of Complin is richer and more complicated. To the simple Benedictine psalmody--modified, however, by the insertion of a fourth psalm (30), "In te Domine speravi"--it adds the solemn introduction of a benediction with a reading [perhaps the spiritual reading which, in St. Benedict, precedes Complin (ch. xlii of the Rule)], and the confession and absolution of faults. But what endows the Roman Complin with a distinctive character and greater solemnity is, to say nothing of the ending, the addition of the beautiful response, In manus tuas, Domine, with the evangelical canticle Nunc Dimittis and its anthem, which is very characteristic. It is really difficult to understand why St. Benedict, whose liturgical taste favoured solemnity in the Office, should have sacrificed these elements, especially the evangelical canticle. By way of liturgical variety the service of initium noctis may also be studied in the Celtic Liturgy (see CELTIC RITE), such as it is read in the Bangor Antiphonary, its plan being set forth by Warren and by Bishop. Under the title of Apodeipnon (after meals), the Greeks have an Hour that corresponds to our Latin Complin; it is very long and complicated, and its description may be seen in Father Pétridès' article, cited below. This Apodeipnon, or Grand Apodeipnon, appears in an abridged form, or Small Apodeipnon.

Notes

PARGOIRE, Prime et complies in Rev. d'hist. et de littér. relig. (1898), III, 281-288, 456-467; VANDEPITTE, Saint Basile et l'origine de complies in Rev. Augustinienne (1903), II, 258-264; PARGOIRE and PÉTRIDÈS in Dict. d'arch. et de liturgie, s. v. Apodeipnon, I, 2579-2589; DOM PLAINE, La Génèse historique des Heures in Rev. Anglo-romaine, I, 593; IDEM, De officii seu cursus Romani origine in Studien u. Mittheilungen (1899), X, 364-397; BÄUMER, Histoire du Bréviaire, tr. BIRON, I, 135, 147-149 and passim; BATIFFOL, Histoire du bréviaire romain, 35; LADEUZE, Etude sur le cénobitisme pakhomien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve (Louvain, 1898), 288; BESSE, Les Moines d'Orient antérieurs au concile de Chalcédoine (Paris, 1900), 333; BISHOP, A Service Book of the Seventh Century in The Church Quarterly Review (January, 1894), XXXVII, 347; CABROL, Le Livre de la Prière antique, 224.

FERNAND CABROL

Compostela

A famous city of Spain, situated on an eminence between the Sar (the Sars of Pomponius Mela) and Sarela. At a very remote period this hill was crowned by a Celtic castle, known as Liberum Donum, according to twelfth century, "Historia Compostelana" (cf. Welsh llwybr, "way", and don, "tower", "castle". Compostela overlooks two Roman roads; the Celto-Roman name was probably Liberodunum). It has been an archiepiscopal see since 1120, but as the successor to the ancient See of Iria its episcopal rank dates certainly from the fourth, probably from the first, century of our era.

ETYMOLOGY

The name Compostela does not appear before the tenth century. In a document of 912 it is said of the monastery of St. Martin, near the cathedral: quod situm est in urbe Compostella. King Ferdinand I in a privilege of 10 March, 1063, apropos of St. James the Great, says: cujus corpus requiescit Gallecia in urbe Compostella. Three years previous a council held in the cathedral is called Compostellanum. From this the name is in frequent use and gradually usurps the names familiar to previous centuries; locus sanctus, arcis marmoreis, ecclesia, or civitas sancti Jacobi. The name seems to be a diminutive of composta, "established", in reference to the stronghold (civitatella) of the city. Similar diminutives abound in the Middle Ages. The cité of Paris, the city of London, the Tolétula of Toledo, the Almudena, diminutive of Almedina, in Madrid and in Palma (Majorca), recall the former distinction between the territory without the walls and the city (civitas) properly so called. The episcopal city of the Island of Minorca (in Romano-Punic, Iamo) yet retains its medieval name Ciutadilla.

THE SEE OF COMPOSTELA

Its history may be divided into two periods, before and after its elevation (1120) to the metropolitan dignity.

The Bishopric

The Sar swollen by the Sarela flows onward from Com- postela some fifteen or sixteen miles until it joins the Ulla, and empties into the sea at Padron (Patronus), a hamlet which has borne that name since the ninth century in memory of the fact that it was the landing - place of the galley which bore to Gallicia the body of the Apostle St. James the Great. Here stood in those days the city of Iria, capital of the Gallician Caporos, as may be seen from its Roman ruins, especially the inscriptions, some of which are contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Era. Pomponius Mela, who lived in the reign of Emperor Claudius, i. e at the time of St. James's martyrdom, says that the Sar enters the ocean near the Tower of Augustus (Turris Augusti); the foundations of the latter are still recognizable an the outer harbour of Iria. In the reign of Vespasian the cognomen Flavia was added; as Iria Flavia it appears in the Geography of Ptolemy. According to a very probable tradition, it was here that the Apostle St. James the Great preached the Christian religion and founded an episcopal see. This tradition was already widespread in the year 700, when St. Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, later Bishop of Sherborne, wrote as follows (P.L., LXXXIX, 293):

(Here also James, born of an ancient sire, protects the lofty shrine with a holy roof--he who, when dear Christ called him from the Seashore, left his own father with the curved ship. He, at the first did convert the Spanish peoples by his teaching, turning towards God's word the barbarous hordes that had long practised primitive rites and worshipped at the shrines of darkness, being deceived by the craft of the evil one. Here did the wonderful bishop perform many portents, which are now set down in order upon our fourfold chart.) The list of the bishops of Iria known to us from their presence at councils and from other authentic sources begins with the year 400. They are: Ortigius. . ., Andreas (572), Dominicus, Samuel, . . ., Gotumarus (646), Vincibilis, Ildulfus Felix (683), Selva, Leosindus . . ., Theudemirus (808?), Adaulfus I (843), and Adaulfus II (851-79). Under the last-named the city was destroyed by Norman pirates, on which occasion both bishop and chapter took refuge behind the strong walls of Compostela. Soon they petitioned King Ordono II and Pope Nicholas I to permit them to transfer the see from Iria to Compostela, near the sepulchre and church of St. James. Both pope and king consented on condition, however, that the honour of the see should be divided between the two places. From the second half of the ninth century therefore the bishops of this see are known indiscriminately as Irienses or Sancti Jacobi, even ecclesiae apostolicae sancti Jacobi, finally as Compostellani. At the end of the eleventh century, through reverence for the body and the sepulchre of St James, Urban II withdrew from Iria its episcopal rank and transferred the see in its entirety to Compostela. At the same time he exempted it from the authority of the metropolitan and made it immediately subject to the Holy See.. This is evident from the Bull of 5 Dec., 1095, in favour of the Cluniac bishop, Dalmatius, present at the famous Council of Clermont.

The Metropolitan See

Thenceforth the see grew in importance, likewise its magnificent Romanesque church, modelled on that of Puy in France, and frequented by pilgrims from all parts of Christendom. Like the cathedral of Toledo after the reconquest (1085), it became the principal centre of the political renaissance of Catholic Spain and its self-assertion against Moslem power. Pope Callistus II recognized the great merits of Diego Gelmírez, Bishop of Compostela, and in view of the reconquest of much Portuguese territory, and the near recovery of its freedom by Merida, the ancient metropolis of Lusitania (Portugal), confided to him the perpetual administration of that archdiocese, whereby Compostela became a metropolitan see. Since then it has been occupied by many illustrious men, not a few of whom were raised to the cardinalitial dignity (Gams,("Series episcoporum ecclesiae Catholicae", Ratisbon, 1873; Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi", Munster, 1898). The Bull of Callistus II (26 Feb., 1120) clothed the metropolitan of Compostela with authority over the following dioceses of the ancient Provincia Lusitana: Salamanca, Avila, Coria, Ciudad Rodrigo, Plasencia, Badajoz -- (in Spain); Idanha (Guarda), Lamego, Lisbon, Evora, Osonova (Silves)--in Portugal beyond the Duero. Though Compostela lost the Portuguese dioceses, 10 Nov., 1399, when Lisbon was made an archbishopric, it acquired in return Astorga, Lugo, Mondonedo, Orense, Tuy, and Zamora. The Concordat of 1851 left it with only five: Lugo, Mondonedo, Orense, Oviedo and Tuy. The list of the councils of Compostela may be seen in the aforesaid work of Gams, and their text in Mansi or Aguirre. One of the most important is the provincial council which asserted the innocence of the Templars within its jurisdiction; another, held 29 Oct., 1310, anticipated in its fourth canon the action of the Council of London (Oct., 1329) under Simon of Mepham, Arcbbishop of Canterbury in decreeing the yearly celebration of the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin throughout the province of Compostela on the eighth of December. Among those who have occupied the See of Compostela may be mentioned: St. Rosendus (970-77); St. Peter de Mononcio (986-1000) probably the author of the Salve Regina; Diego Peláez (1070-88), who began the reconstrucion of the cathedral; Diego Gelmírez (1100-42?), the first Archbishop of Compostela, and who continued the work of Bishop Peláez; Pedro Muñoz (1207-11), who finished the cathedral; Cardinal Miguel Payá y Rico (1874-85), who had the honour of discovering in a crypt behind the high altar of the cathedral the sepulchre and the relics of the Apostle St. James.

The sepulchre of St. James and questions relating thereto are treated in the article ST. JAMES THE GREATER. It will suffice to mention here the document which confirms better than any other the history and the authenticity of this sacred relic of the primitive Christian life of Spain, i.e. the solemn Bull of Leo XIII (1 Nov., 1884) in which he confirms the declaration of Cardinal Payá, Archbishop of Compostela, concerning the identity of the bodies of the Apostle St. James the Greater and his disciples Athanasius and Theodorus.

F. FITA

Compromise (in Canon Law)

Compromise, in a general sense, is a mutual promise or contract of two parties in controversy to refer their differences to the decision of arbitrators. Compromise (Lat. Compromissum) may take place either in elections or in other matters in which dispute arises. In the latter case it may be effected either by law or by option. If the arbiter holds his positiOn by prescription of law, ex jure, the compromise is by law or necessary; if by agreement of the parties, the compromise is by option or voluntary (arbiter compromissarius). In compromise by law the arbiter juris is compelled to take the office; his sentence can be appealed from; but he has coercive power over all and can examine and punish. Whereas in compromise by option the voluntary arbiter is free to undertake the office; there is no appeal from his decision, for the parties freely bind themselves to abide by it; he can only take cognizance of the case; and his duties and powers are defined, conferred and imposed by the parties who have freely chosen him. According to Roman law, and also the old canon law (jus vetus), there was no appeal from the decision of the voluntary arbiter. Later canon law, however, admits of an extrajudicial appeal (provocatio ad causam), especially if there be manifest injustice in the decision. If more than one arbiter be appointed, the number should be an odd one. The subject of compromise can only be such matter as lies within the disposition of the contesting parties. Hence causes beyond the disposal of private parties cannot be made the subject of compromise, as, e. g., criminal causes, matrimonial causes properly so called, causes reserved by law to the supreme courts.

Compromise in elections consists in a commission given by the body of electors to one or several persons to designate the elected person in the place of all. This compromise, in order to be valid, must be the act of all the electors, unless it results from a pontifical declaration. It is not necessary that the compromissarii thus chosen belong to the chapter (q. v.) or to the body of electors; they must, however, be clerics, as laymen cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction and are expressly excluded from elections by law. The electors can posit conditions which must be fulfilled by the arbiters, if they are not against the general canon law. If such conditions are legitimate, they must be fulfilled under penalty of nullity of the compromise or of the election thus performed. In all absolute and unconditioned compromise the arbiters are bound only by the general laws of procedure to be observed in elections. If the person thus designated by the compromissarii be qualified and worthy, and the form and the limits of the compromise be observed, the electors must abide by the result of this decision.

PERMANEDER in Kirchenlex., III, 778; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca (Rome, 1885), I, s. v. Arbiter, Arbitrator; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Arbiter.

LEO GANS.

St. Conal

(Or Conall).

An Irish bishop who flourished in the second half of the fifth century and ruled over the church of Drum, County Roscommon, the place being subsequently named Drumconnell, after St. Conal. Colgan and his copyists inaccurately locate his church at Kilconnell in County Galway, but is is now certain that the church of which St. Conal was bishop was south of Boyle, and, as a matter of fact, the saint is known as "Blessed Conal of Drum". The error of ascribing Kilconnell and Aughrim, County Galway, as foundations of St. Conal can also be dissipated by a reference to the life of St. Attracta, wherein it is recorded that she came to the neighbourhood of Boyle in order to build a cell near the church of her uterine brother, St. Conal, but was dissuaded from her project by St. Dachonna of Eas Dachonna, now Assylin, at the bidding of the saint. We read that St. Attracta prophesied that the episcopal churches of St. Conal (Drumconnell) and St. Dachonna (Eas Dachonna) would in after days be reduced to poverty, owing to the fame of a new monastic establishment. This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled, inasmuch as Drum and Assylin soon after ceased to be episcopal sees, while in 1148 the great Cistercian Abbey of Boyle (q.v.) was founded St. Conal died about the year 500, and his feast is celebrated on 18 March, though some assign 9 February as the date.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

St. Conan

Bishop of the Isle of Man, died January, 684; an Irish missionary, also known as Mochonna. He is not to be confounded with St. Conindrius, who is said to have been a disciple of St. Patrick, and to have lived to be a very advanced age (17 November, 560). The Bollandists place St. Conan amongst the early bishops of Man, and Colgan gives an account of his life and labours. Unfortunately the history of the Isle of Man in the fifth and sixth centuries is very obscure, and it is difficult to get at definite facts, yet St. Conan, or Mochonna, who is also described as "Bishop of Inis-Patrick" left a distinct impress of his zeal for souls in Manxland. Some authorities give the date of his death as 26 January, but Colgan, quoting from the ancient Irish martyrologies, gives 13 January, on which day St. ConanUs feast is observed. There are also several minor Irish saints of the same name, including St. Conan of Assaroe (8 March), and St. Conan of Ballinamore (26 April).

W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Concelebration

Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine. It was once common in both East and West. As late as the ninth century priests stood around their bishop and "consented to his sacrifice" (Corp. Jur. Can., Decr. Grat., Pars III, dist. I, cap. 59). The rite of Concelebration was modified at Rome (perhaps in the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 202-218) so that each priest should consecrate a separate host (the deacons holding these in patens or corporals); but they all consecrated the same chalice ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; see also Dechusne, "Liber Pont.", I, 139 and 246). In the sixth century this rite was observed on all station days; by the eighth century it remained only for the greatest feasts, Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and St. Peter ("Ordo Rom. I", 48; Duchesne, "Origines", 167). On other days the priests assisted but did not concelebrate. Innocent III (1198-1216) says that in his time the cardinals concelebrate with the pope on certain feasts (De Saer. Altar. Myst. in Migne, P.L., CCXVII, IV, 25). Durandus, who denied the possibility of such a rite (Rationale Div. Off., IV, d. xiii, q. 3) is refuted by Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg., I, xviii, 9). St. Thomas defends its theological correctness (Summa Theol., III:82:2). Concelebration is still common in all the Eastern Churches both Catholic and schismatic. In these, on any greater feast day, the bishop says the holy liturgy surrounded by his priests, who consecrate with him and receive Holy Communion from him, of course under both kinds. So also, at any time, if several priests wish to celebrate on the same day, they may do so together.

In the Latin Church the rite survives only at the ordination of priests and bishops. [ Note: Concelebration was fully restored to the Latin Church after the Second Vatican Council.] The newly-ordained priests say the Offertory prayers and the whole Canon, including the words of consecration, aloud with the bishop, kneeling around him. The words of consecration especially must be said "slowly and rather loud" and "at the same moment with the pontiff" (Pont. Rom., do Ord. Presb., rubric). They must say the words significative, that is with the intention of consecrating (Benedict XIV, de SS. Missæ Sacr., III, xvi, 6), and must be careful not to say them before, but exactly with, the bishop (op. cit., loc. cit., 7). They receive Holy Communion under one kind. The same rite is used at a bishopUs consecration, except that in this case the new bishop communicates with the consecrator under both kinds (Pont. Rom., de Cons. Electi in Episc., rubric in the text).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Diocese of Concepción

(SANCTISSIMÆ CONCEPTIONIS DE CHILE)

Located in the Republic of Chile, suffragan to Santiago de Chile. The diocese embraces the provinces of Aranco, Bío-Bío, Concepción, Nuble, Maule, Linares, and Malleco, comprising an area of 27,901 square miles. The Bull of erection was issued by Pius IV, 22 May, 1563, since which time, with the exception of the period between 1818-32 when the see was vacant, a bishop has always had his seat at Concepción. Among the institutions of the diocese may be mentioned an orphan asylum and a missionary college under the Capuchins.

In the diocese there are represented ten religious congregations of men and seven of women, among the latter the Sisters of Providence, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Christian Charity, who have a novitiate and college, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and Sisters of the Sacred Heart; they number in all 393. The diocese has a Catholic population of 835,790, with 52 parishes, 190 priests, 91 secular and 99 regular, 135 churches and chapels. In addition to the college and seminary there are nine Catholic schools with an attendance of 2550 pupils. (See (CHILE)

BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. Cath. (Paris, 1908); Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1908).

F. M. RUDGE.

Conceptionists

A branch of the Order of Saint Clare, founded by Beatriz de Silva. Isabel, the daughter of Edward, King of Portugal, having married John II (1406-1454) of Castile, took her kinswoman, Beatriz de Silva, sister of James I, Count of Portalegre, with her. The beautiful Beatriz, however, aroused the suspicion and jealousy of the queen, and was imprisoned. Escaping, she fled to the Sisters of St. Dominic at Toledo, where she lived about forty years. Her veneration for the Immaculate Conception of Mary inspired her to found, with twelve companions, a special order in honour of Mary's privilege. Queen Isabella gave her the castle of Galliana in 1484. The sisters followed the Cistercian rule, reciting the Office of the Blessed Virgin in addition. Beatriz died 1 Sept., 1490, at the age of sixty-six.

Through the influence of Ximnenes de Cisneros, the famous Archbishop of Toledo, the Conceptionists were subordinated to the Franciscans, and in 1501 they adopted the rules of the Order of Saint Clare, modified with the authorization of Alexander VI. Julius II sanctioned them anew in 1506; Quiñonez, provincial of the Franciscans of Castile, and later general of the entire order, drew up their constitution in 1516. The second convent was founded at Torrigo, another at Madrid in 1512, and one at Assisi in the same year. Maria Theresa of Austria, daughter of Philip IV of Spain, summoned them to the Faubourg Saint-Germain at Paris, where the Sisters of Saint Clare adopted their rules, which were again modified by a Brief of Clement X. The Conceptionists wear a white habit and scapular with a blue cloak, and an image of the Blessed Virgin on their habit. The celebrated Maria de Agreda (q. v), author of "The Mystical City of God", was a Conceptionist. The Conceptionist congregation is at present spread widely throughout Spain and Belgium.

HÉLYOT, Hist. des ordres monastiques, VII, 334-39; WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1736), XV, 451, XVI; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), II, 488 sqq.; Acta Ordinis Min. (1907), XVI, 347 sqq.; Hist. abrégée de l'ordre de Ste Claire d'Assise (Lyons and Paris, 1906), II, 259 sqq.

MICHAEL BIHL.

Industrial Conciliation

Industrial Conciliation is the discussion and adjustment of mutual differences by employers and employees or their representatives. Arbitration (q. v.) implies the submission of such differences to a body in which the authoritative decision is rendered by a disinterested person. In mediation a disinterested person strives either to bring the parties together for conciliation or to induce them to make such mutual concessions as will lead to an agreement. The term, "boards of conciliation", describes not merely committees of employers and employees, but also those appointed by the civil authority, and by private associations. The two latter are primarily concerned with the work of mediation.

In France conciliation has been practised since 1806 by the conseils de prudhommes, or committees of experts. These are composed of equal numbers of employers and employees, and are legally authorized to interpret existing labour contracts and adjust minor grievances. Within this limited field they have been quite successful. Five-sixths of the strikes that were settled by the French Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1892, during the first ten years of its existence, were disposed of by the method of conciliation. For the last thirty-five years conciliation has practically eliminated strikes from the manufactured iron and steel trade in the north of England. Recourse was had to conciliation in 506 of the 788 disputes that were adjusted by boards of conciliation and arbitration throughout England in the year 1903. In the United States about half the States have boards of conciliation and arbitration, while the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labour are directed by the federal law of 1898 to endeavour to bring about conciliation or arbitration whenever they are appealed to by one of the parties to any dispute which threatens seriously to interfere with interstate commerce. Only five of the State boards have accomplished anything worthy of notice, and these five have settled relatively few disputes — mostly by conciliation. The national board has recently given promise of a considerable measure of usefulness. Boards of conciliation composed jointly of employers and employees have adjusted a large number of important differences in many industries — for example, in the shoe industry, the building trades, and the coal mines of the East and the Middle West. Conciliation has also had considerable success through the mediation of prominent citizens, and of bodies like the Civic Federation.

The importance of conciliation finds recognition in the recommendation of Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical on the Condition of Labour, "Rerum Novarum", 15 May, 1891) that masters and workmen should unite in joint associations, and select capable committees for the decision of disputes. This method is highly consonant with Christian peace and Christian charity. Its chief advantages over arbitration are that it brings the two parties together in friendly and informal discussion, teaches each to appreciate the position and rights of the other, and results in a decision that is more willingly accepted and more faithfully observed. There are, however, two important situations in which conciliation can have but slight success: first, where compulsory arbitration is in vogue; second, where the employees have not sufficient economic strength to inflict considerable damage upon their employer through the alternative of a strike. The experience of Western Australia and New Zealand seems to prove the first contention (cf. Clark, The Labour Movement in Australasia, p. 161), while the second seems established by the fact that conciliation was practically unknown before the era of labour unions, and that it has still very little application in unorganized trades. On the other hand, the first step towards conciliation, namely, discussion of differences on an equal plane, becomes quite feasible as soon as each side realizes the strength of the other. When they treat each other as equals and as reasonable men, they easily reach an agreement. Conciliation then becomes much more frequent than voluntary arbitration indeed, it renders the latter method almost superfluous. The labour unions are committed to it, and seem to prefer it to arbitration. John Mitchell sees in the trade agreement, which is essentially the method of conciliation, the greatest hope for industrial peace in America (Organized Labour, p. 354), and Professor T. S. Adams thinks that America will follow the same line of development as England, where conciliation has already produced conditions of industrial peace which are almost entirely satisfactory (Labour Problems, pp. 312, 314, 319). Not the least of the influences making for the extension of conciliation in the United States is public sentiment, which threatens to establish the alternative of compulsory arbitration.

HATCH, Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor, No. 60; ADAMS AND SUMNER, Labor Problems (New York, 1905), viii; BOLEN. Getting a Living (New York, 1903), xxvii; MITCHELL, Organized Labor (Philadelphia, 1903), xxxix; WEBB, Industrial Democracy (London, New York, and Bombay, 1897), pt. I, iii; Final Report of U. S. industrial Commission, pp. 833-847; GILMAN, Methods of Industrial Peace (New York, 1904); ANTOINE, Cours d'économie sociale (Paris, 1899), 467-470; TURMAN, Activitis sociales (Paris, 1907).

JOHN A. RYAN.

Daniello Concina

Dominican preacher, controversialist and theologian, b. at Clauzetto or San Daniele, small places in the Italian province of Friuli, 20 October, 1687; d. at Venice, 21 February, 1756. On the completion of his early studies at the Jesuit college at Görz Austria, he entered the Dominican Order making his religious profession in March 1708, in the convent of Sts. Martin and Rose. After studying philosophy three years, he was sent to study theology in the convent of the Holy Rosary at Venice, where he spent eight years under the direction of the fathers of his order, Andruisso and Zanchio. In 1717 he was appointed to the chair of philosophy, and later to that of theology, in the convent of Forli. About this time he began to attract attention as a preacher. He confined himself at first to the smaller places, but his success soon brought him to the pulpits of the chief cities of Italy; and he preached the Lenten sermons seven times in the principal churches of Rome.

Concina's literary activity was confined chiefly to moral topics. His career as a theologian and controversialist began with the publication of his first book, "Commentarius historico apologeticus", etc. (Venice, 1736, 1745), in which be refuted the opinion, then recently adopted by the Bollandists, that St. Dominic had borrowed his ideas and form of religious poverty from St. Francis. While engaged in the sharp controversy aroused by this work, he entered into another concerning the Lenten fast, which was not closed until Benedict XIV issued (30 May, 1741) the Encyclical, "Non ambigimus" which was favourable to Concina's contention. Shortly afterwards he published his "Storia del probabilismo e rigorismo" (Venice, 1743), a work composed of theological, moral, and critical dissertations. Being directed against the Jesuits, it naturally gave rise to a large controversial literature. The work was highly praised by some notably by Benedict XIV, but among others it met with a very unfavourable reception. The Fathers of the Society of Jesus, the recognized champions of probable opinions in matters of conscience, were not slow in defending their position. The controversy reached a climax when Concina published under the auspices of Benedict XIV, his "Theologia christiana dogmatico-moralis" (12 vols. in 4 ^to, Rome and Venice, 1749-51). The Jesuits appealed to the pope to have it condemned on the ground that it contained errors and was very injurious to the Society. A commission of theologians was then appointed to examine the work, with the result that Concina was requested to prefix to the subsequent edition a declaration dictated by the pope. This declaration, which was practically a summary of the petition of condemnation made by his opponents, appeared in the edition of 1752, but that work itself showed no changes of importance, except the addition of one chapter to the preface in which the author protested that he had always entertained the sincerest regard for the Society of Jesus, that as private theologian he refuted opinions which he considered lax, regardless of authorship, and that if he had erred in any way or done any wrong, he was ready to make a full retractation (cf. Theol. Christ., ch. xiii in praef. t. 1, p. cxxiv).

In his "Theologia christiana" Concina found occasion to pay to the Society as a whole a glowing tribute. Many of its writers are spoken of by him in terms of high esteem. In Italy he promoted the publication of a moral theology by the French Jesuit Gabriel Antoine, which Benedict XIV ordered to be taught in the College of the Propaganda. The truth is, he was an ardent probabiliorist, and from his point of view many of the opinions of the probabilists were lax and pernicious. In refuting them he at times undoubtedly censured their authors too severely and spoke with an excessive asperity. It must be admitted, however, that he placed a salutary, if disagreeable, restraint upon the new thought of the time. Today it is readily seen that some of the authors whom he attacked favoured a dangerous laxism. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that many of his views are now considered severe, some classing him among the rigorists. That Concina was a theologian of no mean order is evidenced by the fact that Benedict XIV appointed him consultor of several Congregations. Moreover, in his work "De Synodo Dioecesana", as also in his Encyclical "Libentissime" of 10 June 1745, the pope refers to Concina as an authority on the question of the Lenten fast. Concina is the author of about forty works, several of which are believed to be still in Italian libraries awaiting an editor.

COULON in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 675-707; PUNKES in Kirchenlex., III, 811; SANDELLIUS, De Danielis Concinae vitâ et scriptis commentarius in Introd. to Theol. christ. (Rome, 1773); Koch, Dan. Concina und die sogennanten reinen Pönalgesetze in Theologische Quartalschrift, 1904, 401-424; DE CONCINA, Vita del Padre Daniello Concina in Monum. Ord. Praed. Hist., XIV, 298.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Conclave

[ NOTE: For current procedures regarding the conclave, see Pope John Paul II's 1996 Apostolic Constitution UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS. See also PAPAL ELECTIONS and ELECTION OF THE POPES.]

(Lat. cum, with, and clavis, key; a place that may be securely closed)

The closed room or hall specially set aside and prepared for the cardinals when electing a pope; also the assembly of the cardinals for the canonical execution of this purpose. In its present form the conclave dates from the end of the thirteenth century. Earlier methods of filling the See of Peter are treated in the article Papal Elections. In this article will be considered: (I) the history of the actual method of papal election; (II) the ceremonial itself.

I. HISTORY OF THE CONCLAVE

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1764 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s. v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s. v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the "Ubi Periculum". Immediately the protracted elections recommenced. In the eighteen years intervening between the suspension of the law of the conclave in 1276 and its resumption in 1294 there were several vacancies of from six to nine months; that which preceded the election of Celestine V lasted two years and nine months. About the only notable act of the latter pope was to restore the conclave. Boniface VIII confirmed the action of his predecessor and ordered the "Ubi Periculum" of Gregory X to be incorporated in the canon law (c. 3, in VI°, I, 6), since which time all papal elections have taken place in conclave. Pope Gregory XI in 1378 empowered the cardinals (for that occasion only) to proceed to an election outside of conclave, but they did not do so. The Council of Constance (1417) modified the rules of the conclave to such an extent that the cardinals of the three "obediences" took part in it as well as six prelates from each of the five nations. This precedent (which however resulted happily in the election of the Roman, Martin V) is perhaps the reason why Julius II (1512), Paul III (1542), Pius IV (1561), and Pius IX (1870) provided that in case of their death during an ecumenical council the election of the new pope should be in the hands of the cardinals, not in those of the council. Pius IV by the Bull "In Eligendis" (1562) provided that the election might take place either in or out of the conclave, but this was revoked by Gregory XIII. This liberty of action is found again in the legislation (1798) of Pius VI (Quum nos superiore anno) which leaves it in the power of the cardinals to modify the rules of the conclave touching enclosure, etc. Again Pius IX by the Bull "In hac sublimi" (23 August, 1871) allowed a majority of the cardinals to dispense with the traditional enclosure. Other important documents of Pius IX dealing with the conclave are his Constitutions "Licet per Apostolicas Litteras" (8 September, 1874) and "Consulturi" (10 October, 1877), also his "Regolamento da osservarsi dal S. Collegio in occasione della vacanza dell'Apostolica Sede" (10 January, 1878).

As a matter of fact these precautions, taken in view of the danger of interference by secular governments, have so far been unnecessary, and elections of popes take place as they always did since the law of the conclave became finally effective. Many popes have legislated on this subject, either to confirm the actions of their predecessors or to define (or add to) previous legislation. Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310) and also that all cardinals, whether excommunicated or interdicted, provided they were not deposed, should have the right to vote. Clement VI (1351) permitted a slight amelioration in the fare and in the strict practice of common life. In the sixteenth century Julius II (1505) by the Bull "Cum tam divino" declared invalid any simoniacal election of a pope. Following the example of Pope Symmachus (499), Paul IV, by the Bull "Cum Secundum" (1558), denounced and forbade all cabals and intrigues during the lifetime of a pope. The aforesaid Constitution of Pius IV "In Eligendis" (1562) is a codification and re-enactment of all the laws pertaining to the conclave since the time of Gregory X. In it he insists forcibly on the enclosure, which had come to be rather carelessly observed. The finally directive legislation on the conclave is that of Gregory XV. In his short reign (1621-1623) he published two Bulls, "Æterni Patris" (1621), and "Decet Romanum Pontificem" (1622), followed by a Cæremoniale for the papal election (Bullar. Luxemb., III, 444 sqq.). Every detail of the conclave is described in these documents. Subsequent legislation has either confirmed these measures, e.g. the "Romani Pontificis" of Urban VIII (1625), or regulated the expenditure of money on the papal obsequies, e.g. the Brief of Alexander VIII (1690), or determined their order, e.g. the "Chirografo" of Clement XII (1732). The more recent legislation of Pius VI, Pius VII, and Pius IX provides for all contingencies of interference by secular powers. Pius VI (who designated a Catholic country in which the majority of the cardinals happened to be) and Pius IX (who left the matter to the judgment of the Sacred College) allowed the widest liberty as to the place of the conclave.

II. CEREMONIAL OF THE CONCLAVE

Immediately on the death of a pope the cardinal camerlengo who, as representative of the Sacred College, assumes charge of the papal household, verifies by a judicial act the death of the pontiff. In the presence of the household he strikes the forehead of the dead pope three times with a silver mallet, calling him by his baptismal name. The fisherman's ring and the papal seals are then broken. A notary draws up the act which is the legal evidence of the pope's death. The obsequies last nine days. Meanwhile the cardinals have been notified of the impending election and those resident in Rome (in Curia) await their absent brethren, assisting in the meantime at the functions for the deceased pontiff. All cardinals, and they alone, have the right to vote in the conclave; they must, however, be legitimately appointed, have the use of reason, and be present in person, not through a procurator or by letter. This right is acknowledged even if they are subject to ecclesiastical censures (e.g. excommunication), or if the solemn ceremonies of their "creation" have yet to be performed. During the aforesaid nine days, and until the election of a successor, all cardinals appear with uncovered rochets, just as all have canopies over their seats at the conclave, to show that the supreme authority is in the hands of the whole College. The cardinal camerlengo is assisted by the heads of the three cardinalitial orders, known as the "Capita Ordinum" (cardinal-bishops, -priests, -deacons). There are frequent meetings, or "congregations", of these four cardinals to determine every detail both of the obsequies of the pope and of the preparations for the conclave. All matters of importance are referred to the general congregations, which since 1870 are held in the Vatican. The cardinal dean (always the Bishop of Ostia) presides over these congregations, in which the cardinals take rank and precedence from the date of their elevation to the purple. Formerly they had also to provide for the government of the Papal States and to repress frequent disorders during the interregnum. In the first of these congregations the various Constitutions which govern the conclave are read and the cardinals take an oath to observe them. Then, in the following days, the various officers of the conclave, the conclavists, confessors, and physicians, servants of various kinds, are examined or appointed by a special commission. Each cardinal has a right to take into the conclave a secretary and a servant, the secretary being usually an ecclesiastic. In case of illness a third conclavist may be allowed, with agreement of the general congregation. All are equally sworn to secrecy and also not to hinder the election. After the conclave certain honorary distinctions and pecuniary emoluments are awarded to the conclavists.

Meanwhile a conclave, formerly a large room, now a large part of the Vatican palace, including two or three floors, is walled off, and the space divided into apartments, each with three or four small rooms or cells, in each of which are a crucifix, a bed, a table and a few chairs. Access to the conclave is free through one door only, locked from without by the Marshal of the Conclave (formerly a member of the Savelli, since 1721 of the Chigi, family), and from within by the cardinal camerlengo. There are four openings provided for the passage of food and other necessaries, guarded from within and without, on the exterior by the authority of the marshal and major-domo, on the interior by the prelate assigned to this duty by the three cardinals mentioned above, representative of the three cardinalitial orders. Once the conclave begins the door is not again opened until the election is announced, except to admit a cardinal who is late in arriving. All communication with the outside is strictly forbidden under pain of loss of office and ipso facto excommunication. A cardinal may leave the conclave in case of sickness (certified under oath by a phisician) and return; not so a conclavist. It may be noted at once, with Wernz, that a papal election held outside of a properly organized conclave is canonically null and void.

Within, the cardinals live with their conclavists in the cells. Formerly every cardinal had to provide his own food, which was carried in state by his men-in-waiting to one of the four openings nearest the cell of the prelate. Since 1878 the kitchen is a part of the conclave. Though all meals are taken in private they are served from a common quarter, but great care is taken to prevent written communication by this way. The cells of the cardinals are covered with cloth, purple if they are of the last pope's "creation", green if not. When they wish to be undisturbed they close the door of their cell, the frame-work of which is in the shape of a St. Andrew's cross. The conclave opens officially on the evening of the tenth day after the pope's decease, unless another day has been assigned. Every precaution is observed to exclude those who have no right within the enclosure, and also unnecessary communication with the outside. Papal legislation has long since forbidden the once customary "capitulations", or ante-election agreements binding on the new pope; it is also forbidden to cardinals to treat of the papal succession among themselves during the pope's lifetime; the pope may, however, treat of the matter with the cardinals. Absolutely necessary modifications of the conclave legislation, during the conclave itself, are temporary only. All true cardinals, as stated, may enter the conclave, but those only who have received deacon's orders have a right to vote, unless they have received a special indult from the late pope. Cardinals who have been preconized, but not yet elevated to the purple, are entitled by a decision of St. Pius V (1571) both to be present and to vote.

Including the cardinals, prelates, and conclavists, there are perhaps two hundred and fifty persons in the enclosure. The government of the conclave is in the hands of the cardinal camerlengo and of the three representative cardinals who succeed one another in order of seniority every three days. About seven or eight o'clock on the morning of the eleventh day the cardinals assemble in the Pauline Chapel and assist at the Mass of the cardinal dean. Formerly they wore the special garment of the conclave, called the crocea. They receive Communion from the hands of the cardinal dean, and listen to a Latin allocution on their obligations to select the most worthy person for the Chair of Peter. After Mass they retire for a few moments, and then assemble in the Sistine Chapel, where the actual voting takes place. There six candles are lighted on the altar on which rest the paten and chalice to be used in voting. Over the chair of each cardinal is a baldachinum. The papal throne is removed. Before each chair is also a small writing desk. When ready to vote they enter the Sistine Chapel accompanied by their conclavists bearing their portfolios and writing materials. Prayers are said by the bishop sacristan; the ballots are distributed and then all are excluded except the cardinals, one of whom bolts the door.

Though since Urban VI (1378-89) none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen -- not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist. Since 14 January, 1505 (Julius II, "Cum tam divino") a simoniacal election is canonically invalid, as being a true and indisputable act of heresy (Wernz, "Jus Decret.", II, 658, 662; see "Hist. Pol. Blätter", 1898, 1900, and Sägmüller, "Lehrbuch d. Kirchenrechts", 1900, I, 215).

There are four possible forms of election: scrutinium, compromissum, accessus, quasi-inspiratio. The usual form is that of scrutinium, or secret ballot, and in it the successful candidate requires a two-thirds vote exclusive of his own. When there is a close vote, and only then, the ballot of the pope-elect, which, like all the others, is distinguishable by a text of Scripture written on one of its outside folds, is opened to make sure that he did not vote for himself. Each cardinal deposits his vote in the chalice on the altar and at the same time takes the prescribed oath: "Testor Christum Dominum qui me judicaturus est me eligere quem secundum Deum judice eligi debere et quod idem in accessu præstabo"–"I call to witness the Lord Christ, Who will be my judge, that I am electing the one whom according to God I think ought to be elected", etc. (For the form of the oath see Lucius Lector, "Le Conclave", 615, 618.) The ballot reads: "Ego, Cardinalis N., eligo in summum Pontificem R. D. meum D. Card. N."

For this election by secret ballot three cardinals (scrutatores) are chosen by lot each time to preside over the operation of voting, three others (revisores) to control the count of their colleagues, and still three others (infirmarii) to collect the ballots of the sick and absent cardinals. If the sick cardinals cannot attend the balloting, then the three infirmarii go to their cells and bring back their votes in a box to the three cardinals presiding, who count them and put them in the chalice with the others. Then, all the ballots having been shaken up and counted, if the number agrees with the number of electors, the chalice is brought to the table and the ballots, on the outside of which appear the names of the candidates, are passed from hand to hand to the third cardinal who reads the names aloud. All present are provided with lists on which the names of all the cardinals appear, and it is customary for the cardinals to check off the votes as they are read. Then the three cardinal revisors verify the result which is proclaimed as definite.

If, upon the first ballot, no candidate receives the necessary two-thirds vote, recourse is often had to the form of voting known as accessus. At the election of Pius X (Rev. des Deux Mondes, 15 March, 1904, p. 275) the cardinal dean did not allow the accessus, though it is a recognized usage of conclaves, regulated by Gregory XI, designed primarily to hasten elections, and usually considered to favour the chances of the candidate who has the most votes. It consists practically of a second ballot. All use the ordinary blanks again, with this difference, that if the elector wishes his vote to count for his first choice he writes Accedo nomini; if he changes his vote he introduces the name of his latest choice. Then the two series of ballots have to be compared and identified by the text on the reverse face of the ballot, so as to prevent a double vote for the same candidate by any elector. When the required two-thirds are not obtained, the ballots are consumed in a stove whose chimney extends through a window of the Sistine Chapel. When there is no election, straw is mixed with the ballots to show by its thick smoke (sfumata) to those waiting outside that there has been no election. There are always two votes taken every day, in the morning and in the evening; they occupy from two to three hours each. When the voting is over one of the cardinals opens the door outside of which are gathered the conclavists, and all retire to their cells. Other forms of election, made almost impossible by the legislation of Gregory XV, are known as quasi-inspiration and compromise. The former supposes that before a given session there had been no agreement among the cardinals and that then one of the cardinals, addressing the assembly, proposes the name of a candidate with the words Ego eligo (I elect, etc.), whereupon all the cardinals, as though moved by the Holy Spirit, proclaim aloud the same candidate, saying Ego eligo, etc. An election by compromise supposes that after a long and hopeless contest the cardinals unanimously delegate a certain number of their body to make a choice. It has not been employed since the fourteenth century.

When a candidate has obtained the required two-thirds vote in a scrutiny or ballot (the choice, since Adrian VI, 1522, falling on one present and invariably on an Italian cardinal), the cardinal dean proceeds to ask him whether he will accept the election and by what name he wishes to be known. Since the time of John XII (955-64; Sägmüller says Sergius IV, 1009-1012) each pope takes a new name in imitation of St. Peter's change of name (see Knöpfler, "Die Namensänderung der Päpste" in "Compte rendu du congrés internat. cath. à Fribourg", 1897, sec. v, 158 sqq.). The doors have previously been opened by the secretary of the conclave; the masters of ceremonies are present, and formal cognizance is taken of the pope's answers. Immediately the masters of ceremonies lower the canopies of all the cardinals' chairs save that of the pope-elect, and he is conducted to a neighbouring room where he is clothed in the papal garments (immantatio). The cardinals then advance and pay him the first "obedience", or homage (adoratio). The pope then either confirms or appoints the cardinal camerlengo, who puts upon his finger the Fisherman's Ring. Then follows the proclamation to the people made by the senior cardinal-deacon, formerly from the central balcony of St. Peter's overlooking the great Piazza, but since 1870 in St. Peter's itself. The conclave then usually terminates, the masons remove the temporary walls, and the cardinals retire to their various lodgings in the city, awaiting a reassembling for the second and third adoratio and for the solemn enthroning. If the pope happens not to be a bishop, he must be consecrated at once and, according to immemorial tradition, by the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. If already a bishop, there takes place only the solemn benedictio or blessing. However, he enjoys full jurisdiction from the moment of his election. On the following Sunday or Holy Day takes place, at the hands of the senior cardinal-deacon, the papal "coronation" from which day the new pope dates the years of his pontificate. The last act is the formal taking possession (possessio) of the Lateran Church, omitted since 1870. For the so-called Veto, occasionally exercised in the past by the Catholic Powers (Spain, Austria, France), see RIGHT OF EXCLUSION.

The actually valid legislation concerning the conclave is found in all manuals of canon law, e.g. Wernz, Jus. Decret. (Rome, 1899), II, 653-665; SÄgmÜller, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900), 313-19; HergenrÖther- Holweck, Lehrbuch des cath. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1903), 268-73; Laurentius, Instit. jur. eccl. (Freiburg, 1903), nos. 99-103; cf. Bouix, De Curiâ Romanâ, 120, and De Papâ, III, 341-44.–The history of the conclave and its ceremonial use fully described in the (illustrated) work of Lucius Lector (Mgr. Guthlin), Le Conclave (Paris, 1894). It replaces advantageously the earlier work of Vanel on the history of the conclaves (Paris, 1689; 3rd ed., Cologne, 1703). English descriptions like those of Trollope (London, 1876) and Cartwright (Edinburgh, 1868) are generally unreliable, being largely inspired by the anti-papal histories of conclaves written by the mendacious and inexact Gregorio Leti (s. l., 1667, 1716), and the inaccurate and maliciously gossipy Petruccelli della Gattina (Brussles, 1865). See Dublin Reviewd (1868), XI, 374-91, and Civiltá Cattolica (1877), I, 574-85; also Creighton in Academy (1877), XI, 66. See La nouvelle législation du conclave in Université cath. (Lyons, 1892), 5-47, and Teeling, The Development of the Conclave in The Dolphin (Philadelphia, 1908). For a catalogue of studies (often documentary) on special conclaves, see Cleroti, Bibliografia di Roma papale e medievale (Rome, 1893). The conclave that elected Pius X is described by an eyewitness (Un Témoin), said to be Cardinal Mathieu, in Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 March, 1904. See other valuable recent literature in the articles Papal Elections, and RIGHT OF EXCLUSION.

Austin Dowling

Concordances of the Bible

Concordances of the Bible are verbal indexes to the Bible, or lists of Biblical words arranged alphabetically with indications to enable the inquirer to find the passages of the Bible where the words occur. Some simply indicate the passages; but a really good concordance quotes enough of a passage to recall it to the memory of one familiar with it. Sometimes concordance is used in reference to alphabetical indexes of Biblical subjects, which guide one to all the passages of the Bible referring to the subject in question; but as commonly employed in English the word denotes a purely verbal concordance, a text-finder. Such a work is a useful and, in fact, indispensable, help to every student of the Bible. Its principal use is to enable him to locate any text he remembers, or to locate and get accurately any text vaguely remembered, if but one important word of it be recalled. Concordances in the original tongues are ever in the hand of the expert student in his exegetical and critical studies, aiding him indirectly by their indications to ascertain the various shades of meaning which the same or cognate words may take on, and thus, for example, to prove helpful in the construction of the theology of a writer or an epoch; to trace the history of words and thus obtain a clue to the development of the doctrines connected with them, or the changes of thought and feeling that have taken place; to collate the vocabulary of a writer or a document, and thus to gather evidence for determining the authorship or date of disputed writings; to trace the history of a character, a race, a town, etc.; and for various other purposes which each student discovers for himself in the course of his studies. This article aims to be historical, but also, in part, practical, by indicating the best helps of this kind.

I. LATIN

Verbal concordances of the Bible are the invention of the Dominican friars. The text which served as basis of their work was naturally that of the Vulgate, the Bible of the Middle Ages. The first concordance, completed in 1230, was undertaken under the guidance of Hugo, or Hugues, de Saint-Cher (Hugo de Sancto Charo), afterwards a cardinal, assisted, it is said, by 500 fellow-Dominicans. It contained no quotations, and was purely an index to passages where a word was found. These were indicated by book and chapter (the division into chapters had recently been invented by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury) but not by verses, which were only introduced by Robert Estienne in 1545. In lieu of verses, Hugo divided the chapters into seven almost equal parts, indicated by the letters of the alphabet, a, b, c, etc. This beginning of concordances was very imperfect, as it gave merely a list of passages, and no idea of what the passages contained. It was of little service to preachers, therefore; accordingly, in order to make it valuable for them, three English Dominicans added (1250-1252) the complete quotations of the passages indicated. This completeness of quotation is not aimed at in the present concordances, for lack of space; it is likely, therefore, that the passages indicated were far fewer than those found in a complete concordance of to-day. The work was somewhat abridged, by retaining only the essential words of a quotation, in the concordance of Conrad of Halberstadt, a Dominican (1310), which obtained great success on account of its more convenient form. The first concordance to be printed, it appeared in 1470 at Strasburg, and reached a second edition in 1475. The larger work from which it was abridged was printed at Nuremberg in 1485. Another Dominican, John Stoicowic, or John of Ragusa, finding it necessary in his controversies to show the Biblical usage of nisi, ex, and per, which were omitted from the previous concordances, began (c. 1435) the compilation of nearly all the indeclinable words of Scripture; the task was completed and perfected by others and finally added as an appendix to the concordance of Conrad of Halberstadt in the work of Sebastian Brant published at Basle in 1496. Brant's work was frequently republished and in various cities. It served as the basis of the concordance published in 1555 by Robert Estienne (Stephens), the distinguished French Protestant scholar and printer. Estienne added proper names, supplied omissions, mingled the indeclinable words with the others in alphabetical order, and gave the indications to all passages by verse as well as by chapter, in all these respects bringing his work much closer to the present model. Since then many different Latin concordances have been published of which it will suffice to mention Plantinus' "Concordantiæ Bibliorum juxta recognitionem Clementinam" (Antwerp, 1599), which was the first made according to the authorized Latin text; "Repertorium Biblicum . . . studio. . . Patrum Ordinis S. Benedicti, Monasterii Wessofontani" (Augsburg, 1751); "Concordantiæ Script. Sac.", by Dutripon, in two immense volumes, the most useful of all Latin concordances, which gives enough of every text to make complete sense (Paris, 1838; seventh ed. 1880; an edition of the same by G. Tonini, at Prado, 1861, recognized as nearly complete); Coornaert's, intended for the use of preachers (Bruges, 1892); the "Concordantiarum S. Scripturæ Manuale", by H. de Raze, Ed. de Lachaud, and J.-B. Flandrin (13th ed., Paris, 1895), which, however, gives rather a choice of texts than a complete concordance; "Concordantiarum Universæ Scripturæ Sacræ Thesaurus", by Fathers Peultier, Etienne, and Gantois (Paris, 1902). No Latin concordance gives the Hebrew or Greek equivalent of the Latin words but Peter Mintert's "Lexicon Græco-Latinum" of the N. T. is a concordance as well as a lexicon, giving the Latin equivalent of the Greek and, in the case of Septuagint words, the Hebrew equivalent also (Frankfort, 1728).

II. HEBREW

The first Hebrew concordance was the work of a Jew, Mordecai or Isaac Nathan, begun in 1438 and finished in 1448. It was inspired by the Latin concordances to aid in defence of Judaism, and was printed in Venice in 1523. An improved edition of it by a Franciscan monk, Marius de Calasio, was published in 1621 and 1622 in four volumes. Both these works were several times reprinted, while another Hebrew concordance of the sixteenth century, by Elias Levita, said to surpass Nathan's in many respects, remained in manuscript. Nathan and Calasio arranged the words according to the Hebrew roots, the derivatives following simply according to the order in which they occur in the Hebrew books; the Buxtorfs, father and son, introduced order into the derivatives by a grammatical classification of the verbs and nouns. Their work (Basle, 1632) also contained many new words and passages previously omitted, and an appendix of all the Chaldaic words in the O. T.; Baer's edition of Buxtorf (1847) added certain particles. Fürst's concordance (Leipzig, 1840) was for a long time the standard. It corrected Buxtorf and brought it nearer to completeness, printed all Hebrew words with the vowel-points, and perfected the order of the derivatives. Every word is explained in Hebrew and Latin. Fürst excludes, however, the proper nouns, the pronouns, and most of the indeclinable particles, and makes many involuntary omissions and errors; his classification of roots is sometimes fanciful. "The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldaic Concordance" (London, 1843; third edition, 1866) is still very useful. The most comprehensive Hebrew concordance ever published is that of Mandelkern (Leipzig, 1896), who rectified the errors of his predecessors and supplied omitted references. Though his own work has been shown to be frequently imperfect, still it is almost complete, and by far the best of Hebrew concordances. An abridged edition of it was published in 1900.

III. GREEK SEPTUAGINT

The first was that of Conrad Kircher (Frankfort, 1607); Tromm's, published at Amsterdam, 1718, had reference not only to the Sept., but also to the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; it remained the standard till our own day, when it gave way to Hatch and Redpath's "Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament" (Oxford, 1892-97). This is a beautiful work and is commonly considered about as perfect as present scholarship permits. It includes a concordance to the deutero-canonical books and the O. T. Apocrypha, and to the remains of the versions which form part of Origen's Hexapla. The Hebrew equivalents of the Greek, when known, are also given. References to proper names are omitted, which, however, are added in a supplement published in 1900. We must await a truly critical edition of the Sept., nevertheless, before we can have the final, perfect concordance. Bagster's "Handy Concordance to the Septuagint" (London, 1887) gives simply the references, without quotations.

IV. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The earliest concordances to the Greek New Testament are those of Birken or Betulius (Basle, 1546), Henry Estienne (Paris, 1594), and Erasmus Schmid (Wittenberg, 1638), whose work was twice revised and republished. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the standard N. T. concordance was that of Bruder (Leipzig, 1842; 4th ed., 1888). Its main defect is that it was practically based on the textus receptus, though it aims, in its latest editions to give also the chief variants. The best, beyond doubt, is Moulton and Geden's "Concordance to the Greek Testament", according to the text of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the English Revisers (Edinburgh and New York, 1897). This includes all the marginal readings. In the ease of a reading being in dispute among these authorities, the fact is pointed out. The Hebrew equivalents of all quotations in the N. T. are given; the relation of the Greek N. T. words to the Septuagint and other O. T. Greek versions, as well as to classical usage, is indicated. Two other useful concordances, especially for those not very familiar with the Greek, are "Englishman's Greek Concordance to the New Testament", by G. V. Wigram (London, 1839, 2d ed. 1844), and Hudson's "Critical Greek and English Concordance of the N. T." (Boston, 1875), which contains references to the chief variant readings.

V. SYRIAC

Charles Schaaf's "Lexicon Syriacum" (Leyden, 1709) practically serves the purpose of a concordance to the Peshito version.

VI. ENGLISH

The earliest concordances in English were published in the middle of the sixteenth century, the first by T. Gybson in 1535 (for N. T. only), and the second in 1550 by John Marbeck. The most famous belongs to the eighteenth century and is the work of Alexander Cruden. First published in 1738, it reached several editions in his own lifetime and has been re-edited and reprinted repeatedly till the present day. Abridgments have been published which sometimes endeavour to pass for the complete work. Cruden's work is not really a complete concordance, and omits especially many references to proper names, but his last edition had one virtue, lacking in the best concordances of our day, which commends it to Catholics especially, namely, its concordance to the deutero-canonical, or so-called apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, which, however, is usually not reprinted. With this exception, it is far surpassed by the three great concordances of our own day, those of Young, Strong, and Walker. R. Young's "Analytical Concordance to the Bible" (Edinburgh, 1879-84), an almost complete concordance, has the great virtue of indicating the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Greek original of the English word, and distinguishing the various meanings that may underlie the same word. Strong's "Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" (New York, 1894) has reference only to the English text; for that it can hardly be improved, as it is extremely rare to find a text missing from Strong. As a text-finder, it is unsurpassed; but it lacks the special advantages of Young's signalized above. It contains also a comparative concordance between the Authorized and Revised English versions, useful for a study of the changes introduced. Its real bulk and weight, however, render it a rather formidable book to handle. Walker's "Comprehensive Concordance to the Holy Scriptures" (Boston, 1894) is a volume of convenient size, and almost as complete as Strong's. An excellent "Complete Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testament", by J. A. Thoms, was published in London, 1884. The works of Wigram and Hudson on the Greek N. T. are also very useful to the English reader.

No concordance to the English Catholic Bible has been published, and it can hardly be said that one is much needed, except for the deutero-canonical books; the late concordances in English suffice, with the exception noted, for the needs of any intelligent reader. For concordances in other modern languages, consult the articles of Mangenot and Kaulen.

MANGENOT in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de La Bible (Paris, 1897), s. v. Concordances de La Bible; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. Bibelconcordanzen, prints specimens of many concordances. To these two articles we are indebted for most of our facts regarding the earlier concordances. HAZARD, Introduction to WALKER, Comprehensive Concordance (Boston, 1894); BACHER in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1903), s. v. Concordances.

JOHN F. FENLON.

Concordat

Definition

Canonists and publicists do not agree about the nature of a concordat and, consequently, vary much in the definition they give. The various theories will be explained later, but for the sake of orderly discussion at least a nominal definition will be premised. In general, a concordat means an agreement, or union of wills, on some matter. But as soon as we attempt to define this general notion more clearly a difficulty arises. Agreement of wills may be had in many ways: in friendship, in regard to privileges, in a bilateral contract, etc. Prescinding for the present from the exact nature of a concordat, and without giving an exact definition, we may say that a concordat is a law, ecclesiastical and civil, made for a certain country in regard to matters which in some way concern both Church and State, a law, moreover, possessing the force of a treaty entered into by both the ecclesiastical and civil power and to a certain extent binding upon both. The full meaning of the terms employed will be explained below.

Purpose

The purpose of a concordat is to terminate, or to avert, dissension between the Church and the civil powers. This is evident from history. During the first three centuries, when the civil authority was bent upon the total ruin and destruction of the Church, concordats were out of the question. After the era of persecution was over, and, with the exception of some temporary usurpations and outrages, the Christian Emperors of Rome generally recognized and defended the rights of the Church, concordats were unnecessary. This state of affairs continued until the end of the eleventh century, when there arose the strife about investitures which was settled in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, or Pactum Callixtinum, between Callistus II (q. v.) and Henry V. This may be called the first concordat, unless the agreement of London (1107) is reckoned, as it may be, among the number of concordats. The contest between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, at the end of the thirteenth century, opened the way for still further disagreements between the Church, which strove to preserve its rights inviolate, and those civil powers which sought to usurp them. These disagreements gave rise to various concordats. Before the eighteenth century there were six (or seven if the London agreement of 1107 be counted); during the eighteenth century there were fifteen, and in the nineteenth century a much larger number (see SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCORDATS, below).

It is to be noted that De Angelis, who is followed by Giobbio and in part by Cavagnis, does not consider the Pactum Callixtinum a concordat, because in it Callistus II made no concession of any importance to the emperor. This reason, however, as Wernz well observes, is false. For, according to the best authorities on the Pactum Callixtinum, the pope granted to Henry V several important concessions, permitting the emperor to assist at episcopal elections and to exact from bishops-elect in Germany and from consecrated bishops in other parts of the empire (i. e. in Burgundy and Italy) not merely the oath of simple loyalty but even that of vassalage, by which the rights and liberties of the Church were considerably restricted. Cavagnis likewise remarks about the first concordat with Portugal, in 1288, that it is rather a decree of the pope in which, after hearing the bishops and the royal plenipotentiaries, he decided what should be allowed, what denied, out of the powers which the King claimed on the ground either of privilege or of custom. Granting all this, it does not seem to follow that such an act could not be called a concordat; for it is by no means evident that mutual concessions are essential to the very nature of a concordat. An agreement may very well exist without mutual concessions—a principle especially in accord with the view of those authorities (including Cavagnis) who see in every concordat a strictly bilateral contract; for the due rights of either party can properly be recognized and established by any contract properly so called. Hence it is plain that concordats have in general been made in order to end a disagreement and restore harmony. Not always, however; for concordats have at times been made when there was no actual disagreement to be settled—solely for the purpose of preventing disagreements in the future and of rendering more secure and permanent the welfare of the Church in some State. This was done between Pius IX and Garcia Morena, President of Ecuador in 1862.

With regard to the necessity of concordats two extreme opinions are to be avoided. Concordats are not absolutely necessary; neither are they harmful to the Church or civil society. Assuredly it were to be desired that the Church should never need concordats, and should always find in civil rulers devoted children, or at least such as would use all diligence in caring for the spiritual welfare of their Catholic subjects, and would religiously respect their rights. But, unfortunately, the contrary too often occurs. Hence the Church, to avoid a greater evil, has often had to promise to forego this or that natural right of her own in order to secure from the State a promise to refrain from further encroachment upon ecclesiastical rights.

Matter or Object of a Concordat

The matter, or the objects, treated of in a concordat may be spiritual, mixed, or temporal.

Spiritual matters are those that belong purely to the spiritual order, or are connected with it: for example, matters pertaining to the liturgy. Thus, in some concordats there has been question of inserting the name of the emperor in the Canon (q. v.) and of singing after the Divine Office the formula: "Domine, salvam fac rempublicam", or "Domine, salvos fac consules", or "Domine, salvos fac præsides eius" (cf. art. 8, of the Concordat of 1801; arts. 23, 24 of the Concordat with Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1853; arts. 15, with Haiti, 1860; art. 21, with Ecuador, 1862; arts. 22, 23, with Nicaragua and San Salvador, 1863). In like manner there is frequent mention of nominating bishops, of the establishment and bestowal of parishes, or of prescribing special regulations for the promotion of clerics to Holy orders or to ecclesiastical dignities, so as to prevent, for example, the number of clerics from becoming too large (cf. art. 5, Concordat with Spain, 1737; C. iv, Concordat with Sicily, 1741), and so on.

Mixed matters are those which belong, though under different aspects, both to the temporal and spiritual orders, and are subject to both authorities, such as public education, marriage, etc.

Temporal matters are such as of their own nature do not belong to the spiritual order. In some concordats the Church has allowed rulers to impose taxes not only on the private possessions of clerics, but also on ecclesiastical property; so the Roman Pontiff has at times given up his claims on account of certain ecclesiastical properties damaged in the course of civil or religious turmoil. Examples of each of these occur in the Concordat with Columbia, in 1887. It is to be noted that, when the pope absolutely surrenders temporal possessions of the Church, as in art. 29 of this concordat, such possessions no longer remain under the ownership or jurisdiction of the Church or subject to it. When, however, he merely permits such property to be taxed (as in art. 6 of the Colombian Concordat, art. 18 or art. 19 of that with Costa Rica, in 1853) then the property remains in the ownership of the Church, which does not acknowledge in the State any inherent right to impose taxes of this kind, but rather implies the contrary by the very concession.

The Contracting Parties

It is clear that only those persons in Church or State are competent to enter into a concordat who in their respective spheres have the right of making treaties, and indeed of enacting laws. Hence, absolutely speaking, bishops, as true rulers of the Church vested with authority to make laws strictly so called, can also make concordats on all matters falling within their jurisdiction. In past ages they have often exercised this right; a concordat was made between the bishops of Portugal and King Diniz in 1288, and confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289. In 1273 one was made between the bishops of Norway and Magnus VI (IV), by which the bishops renounced the right of electing the king as long as there were legitimate heirs of the blood, and the king on his part bound himself to prevent the royal officials from interfering with the free exercise of ecclesiastical authority. This concordat was confirmed in the following year by Gregory X in the Second Council of Lyons. Many other concordats made by bishops might be mentioned; for example, between the bishops of Portugal and King Manuel, confirmed by Leo X in 1516. Candido Mendes de Almeida, in his "Jus Civile Ecclesiasticum Brasilicum Vetus et Recens", enumerates eighteen concordats made between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the Kings of Portugal with the clergy of the kingdom, for the settlement of serious controversies. At the present time bishops do not possess the power of making concordats; it is reserved to the pope. The reason for this reservation is that concordats deal not with one question only, but with the settlement of all ecclesiastical matters in a particular country; such a wide field of affairs manifestly constitutes a causa major, and as such is reserved exclusively for the judgment of the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, in recent concordats concessions have almost always been made contrary to the ordinary canon law, and such concessions can be made only by the pope. It should also be noted that governments desirous of entering into a concordat with the Church prefer to deal with the pope, so as to have a regulation by which all the bishops will be bound. The Roman Pontiff in making a concordat acts in his capacity as pontiff, and not as a civil ruler; and this was the case even before he was despoiled of his temporal sovereignty. Hence, in making a concordat, he acts as pope and, as Supreme Ruler and Pastor of the Universal Church, exercises the supreme and full authority of his primacy.

On the part of the State those competent to make concordats are supreme legislators or chief magistrates—an emperor, king, or president, acting alone, where the supreme authority is plenary and unrestricted; acting with the consent of the representative body, where such consent is constitutionally necessary for legislation. Wernz (Jus Decret., I, 166) remarks: "The Apostolic See, to avoid the risk of open mockery, usually enters into solemn undertakings only where a civil government is under no obligation to seek the consent of a representative body, or where there can be no reasonable doubt that such consent will be granted." It is also to be remembered that the Roman Pontiff makes concordats with governments only in their civil capacity, even when such governments are non-Catholic. Hence it cannot be supposed that a concordat with the Tsar of Russia or the King of Prussia is made with either of these potentates as with the supreme spiritual head of a schismatic or Protestant sect.

Nature of Concordats

To explain the nature of concordats three theories have been proposed:

Before explaining and examining these theories in detail, it is well to note first of all that the name given to each theory should not be understood as if the authors of the various opinions considered all the articles of a concordat as possessing equal force. Those who defend the privilege theory do not maintain that no article in any concordat ever imposed an obligation of justice on the Roman Pontiff. On the other hand, those who defend the compact theory do not assert that the Roman Pontiff is bound in the same way by all the articles of every concordat. These theories have been named, as Wernz points out, from the feature most prominent in each. It is clear, then, that authors who defend the privilege theory maintain, in the last resort, no more than this: that, in respect to the greater part of their matter, concordats must be classed as privileges granted by the Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless, as this subject matter of a concordat is not necessarily homogeneous (the unity of a concordat being merely extrinsic and accidental) it follows that although the term privilege may be applied to a concordat taken as a whole, it cannot necessarily be used of every clause in the same.

This view, which counts among its recent staunch defenders Cardinal Tarquini, seems to rest upon surer grounds than the others. Before advancing the arguments in its favour, it would be well to examine the position of its opponents. It is evident that the advocates of the first, or legalist, theory build all their arguments upon the supposition that the Church is subject to the State, of which it forms but a department, just as any other body is subject to the whole of which it is a part and from which, consequently, it depends. This view we find expressly maintained by Hinschius, who says: "The theory that asserts that a concordat possesses the force of a contract seems untenable, notwithstanding the vast numbers of its followers. According to the modern civil law the authority of the State over all matters falling within its sphere is omnipotent, and Christian Churches which exist within the territory of any State are subject to that State in just the same manner as are private corporations or individuals." Hammerstein, in his clever refutation of these errors (De Ecclesiâ et Statu juridice consideratis, Trier, p. 211) says that this "sphere", within which the State is said to be omnipotent, may be understood in a juridical or a geographical sense, i. e. as signifying the limits either of the State's rights or of its geographical possessions. If taken in the first sense, the grandiose words of Hinschius become puerile, if in the second sense, then Hinschius is advocating a legal enormity. For if the word sphere be taken to signify "extent of authority", the assertion of Hinschius means nothing more than that the State can, within the limits of its own rights and authority, do what it will. And it needed no philosopher to proclaim this, since it is abundantly evident that anyone can do all whatsoever he can do. If, on the other hand, sphere be taken in the sense of "geographical extension", Hinschius is maintaining that the State may, within the bounds of its own territory, perpetrate any crime it chooses. To quote Hammerstein, "We have said that the phrase, 'the State's sphere', can be understood to mean geographical extension. In this case, the teaching of the Prussian canonist, Hinschius, when taken in the concrete, practically comes to this,—that within the territory of the Kingdom of Prussia the Prussian government can, without any injustice whatever, behead, burn alive, or spoil of their property all whomsoever it pleases and because it pleases; and why? Because the Prussian government is—omnipotent! Surely a wonderful system of jurisprudence!" Moreover, it is noteworthy that the very principle which this school of writers assume as the basis of their argument, namely that no true compact can exist between a sovereign power and its subordinates (whence they argue that between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities no compact can exist entailing strict obligations upon the former), this fundamental principle is not only false in itself but is contradicted by their own theories. For they maintain that a strict compact can be made between ruler and ruled, whereby the authority of the former may be diminished, or even partially or wholly abolished.

Those who claim that concordats are to be considered as bilateral contracts in the strictest sense of the word experience in trying to maintain their assertion the same difficulty as the followers of the legalist theory. They, too, have recourse to a false principle, that of the perfect co-ordination and equality of Church and State. It does not fall within the scope of this article to show the falsity of this assumption; suffice to say in passing, that the co-ordination or subordination of societies among themselves is to he determined by the co-ordination or subordination of the ends for the attainment of which said societies were instituted; now the end the Church has to attain is superior to that of any other society.

The arguments of those who hold that concordats are bilateral contracts, though only in the broad sense of the term, are based upon their language and diplomatic form. For they argue that these clearly show that the popes themselves regarded concordats as concessions to which were annexed the binding force of a compact, and that in making them they intended to bind themselves by them sometimes to the extent of declaring null and void whatever they themselves or their successors should do in contravention of anything contained in their concordats. An example in point is the concordat between Leo X and Francis I of France. Furthermore, it is claimed that the popes often have referred to concordats, directly or equivalently, as bilateral contracts, or agreements carrying with them a strict obligation. Thus Fink, in his work "De Concordatis" (Louvain, 1879), when summing up his argument says: "In the estimation of the Holy See, concordats are solemn agreements with regard to the management of ecclesiastical affairs, entered into by the supreme authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, of the respective countries; they are possessed of the full efficacy of a strict obligation, and have the force of a compact binding both contracting parties, after the manner of international treaties. Besides the obligation of justice, the binding force of a concordat is strengthened by a solemn promise made by each party for himself and his successors to observe forever faithfully and inviolably all that has been agreed upon. Unless, then, by mutual consent, no concordat can be broken without violating every principle of justice and jeopardizing all other private and public contracts." Other arguments are drawn from expressions occurring in the diplomatic correspondence of the Papal Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, much of what we have just given from Fink is to be found not in papal documents themselves, but in the correspondence of the Secretariate of State. Lastly, the advocates of this form of the compact theory assert that the common opinion among canonists is also in their favour. But, with all due respect to the learned scholars who hold and defend the opinion, the argument drawn from the form of the concordat has but little weight. For it is not at all rare for an act to be clothed with a form which, though, perhaps, less adapted to the nature of the act itself, yet in no way changes that nature. For example, the formula of absolution in the Greek Church is deprecatory, yet this form of entreaty in no way changes the judicial nature of the pronouncement. So, too, Gregory VII deposed Henry IV by a form of deprecation, yet it cannot be denied that the judgment passed was truly condemnatory. So also a religious before his solemn profession may renounce all his possessions under the form of a will, which form endures even after his profession, while the nature of the act is essentially changed, since there no longer exists that voluntas ambulatoria which a last will and testament of its nature requires. Nor are the arguments drawn now and then from solemn promises any stronger. For the pope often calls certain concessions mentioned in concordats "privileges", "indults", etc., etc., and at times speaks even more precisely, asserting that he will in no way interfere in the doing of this or that. If at times the stricter formulæ are employed, as in the concordat between Leo X and Francis I (a formula which seems to be the strictest of all and decrees as null and void whatever to the contrary is attempted by subsequent pontiffs), they are employed, as Palmieri notes in the first edition of his treatise "De Romano Pontifice", first, that the pope may testify to his firm purpose of observing, in as far as he may, the points mentioned in the concordat: secondly, because of the scope of the instrument itself, which is similar to an agreement entered into by a father and his disobedient children. In such reconciliations it often happens that a formula is used between a father and a child still under his jurisdiction which verbally signifies a bilateral contract, but which in point of fact is employed for the sole purpose of manifesting the leniency and liberality of the father. Thirdly, very often such formulæ are employed because of the unity of the act itself. That this is true, is evident because at times there are articles which bind the pope in justice, and also because by a concordat a civil ruler (i. e. in the case of a concordat drawn up with a Catholic prince) is really and truly bound by obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Hence, although the latter is bound to his promise only through fidelity to his word, it was deemed advisable to use a common form which, as in the case of bilateral contracts, implies a mutual obligation, the nature and interpretation of which is sufficiently evident from the nature and tenor of the concordat itself. It is also to be noted that emphatic phrases such as those above mentioned, employed with a view to express the firm determination of the legislator, are not at all rare; so, for instance, there is sometimes attached to a code of laws a clause derogatory of all future laws, v. g. "by virtue of this unchangeable constitution which is to endure forever". Yet no one claims that a subsequent legislator is bound by such a clause, nor that he cannot abrogate the constitution in whole or in part. That the popes admit that concordats are identical with bilateral contracts, is not wholly true. For they are rarely called such, the ordinary expression being that they have the force of a bilateral contract—something entirely different. For (as Baldi notes in his excellent work on concordats, "De Naturâ et Indole Concordatorum) all such technical phrases as, "to have the same binding force as a treaty", "to be a species of contract", "to partake of the nature of a privilege", "to resemble a gift"—all these signify nothing else than participation in, and not identity with, the nature of all of these. Just as when the law declares, "The admission of postulation has the force of confirmation", it is legitimate to conclude, "therefore admission of postulation is not confirmation but participates in and approaches to, as far as its nature allows, the nature of confirmation. Again, it argues nothing against the opinion held in the article that concordats are sometimes expressly designated bilateral agreements or contracts (perhaps once: to wit, in the letter of Leo XIII, dated 16 Feb., 1892, to the bishops and faithful of France), since in such cases it is evident that the pope wished only to observe all the conventionalities of concordats—in so far at least as duty permitted. It was not the pope's intention to define and determine the exact essence of a concordat, but rather to manifest his mind on the matter in question, and give assurance that he, on his part, would not violate the articles agreed upon. Relative to this matter Wernz says: "Pius X praised Bonald because he brought to his notice the nature and peculiar characteristic of these agreements or indults." Then, too, Leo XIII earnestly recommended that the question of concordats be seriously and thoroughly looked into. Surely the praise of Pius and the recommendation of Leo would have been utterly foolish if the theory of bilateral contracts had been evidently and unquestionably adopted by the Apostolic See.

Of less value is the argument drawn from individual phrases occurring occasionally in diplomatic correspondence. For, apart from the fact that never, perhaps, in these diplomatic notes is a concordat said to be identical with a bilateral contract, it must also be granted, and that without evasion, that the weakest kind of argument is that drawn from one or another phrase used by some Cardinal Secretary of State, or some Apostolic Nuncio in a single diplomatic note. For the admission is not forced upon us that these phrases are the best that under the circumstances could be chosen. It is also false that the treaty theory is more commonly held by theologians and canonists. For neither is this true of the modern canonists, while it is absolutely false of those of earlier date, very many of whom (as Baldi clearly proves in his erudite commentary on concordats already cited) held the opinion advanced in this paper. This opinion, it must be noted, is based on two principles: first, that ecclesiastical and civil society are not co-ordinate; secondly, that the power of the Roman Pontiff can be neither alienated nor diminished. On this point Wernz wisely remarks: "If the co-ordination of Church and State be urged as an argument, then the treaty theory is founded either on an error, or on a pure fiction lacking all objective reality." (Cf. Sägmuller, "Lehrbuch des kath. Kirchenrechts", 89 sqq.) Hence it follows that it is utterly impossible to call a concordat an international treaty in the real and true sense of the word (cf. a pamphlet anonymously edited in Rome, 1872, under the title: "Della Natura e carattere essenziale dei Concordati", whose author was Cardinal Cagiano de Azevedo). Neither can the concordat be classed with international treaties, since the latter are entered upon by two societies each perfect in itself and both equal. The Church, on the other hand, is neither subordinate to, nor equal to, the State, but is in a true sense its superior. Hence, also, it follows that concordats are not bilateral contracts; since for such a contract three things are essentially required:

But a strict right arising from commutative justice is altogether independent not only of the other contracting party, but also, generally speaking, of public authority. Hence, no one can lawfully or validly take such a right away from me against my will. Moreover, it cannot be said that concordats impose on the pontiff an obligation which is the cause of a right in the other party, and of such a right as can be neither lawfully nor validly recalled. For certainly, in this hypothesis, a succeeding pontiff could not do as much as his predecessor; he would receive a lessened power, not that which Peter received from Christ to be transmitted to his successors for the government of the church. And this surely cannot be, since each succeeding pontiff receives his power not from his dead predecessor, but from God himself, who always gives the selfsame, as he has said once for all to Peter and his successors: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church . . . Feed my lambs . . . I will give to thee the keys". Therefore a succeeding pontiff is not bound by the compacts of his predecessor as by a bilateral contract giving such a strict right of commutative justice that if he violate the agreement without cause his act is invalid. And neither is the pontiff who has made such compacts so bound by them, for he is not the master of that fullness of power which is the primacy, but only its administrator, so that he cannot alienate or lessen it. Nor can you argue that by concordats, which are bilateral contracts, not the power of the supreme pontiff, but only its exercise, is diminished. For what is that power which can never be exercised, or which, if exercised, remains without effect? And such would be the case, for even if the pontiff wished he could not act validly, and therefore his power would be lessened. And hence the Roman pontiff must retain the fullness of power and jurisdiction over those questions which are settled in a concordat. This is what Cardinal Antonelli, Secretary of State, maintained in his diplomatic correspondence, when the Kingdom of Portugal complained that the pontiff had violated the concordat.

Does the pontiff then contract no obligation in concordats? Assuredly he contracts an obligation; and they do an injury to Cardinal Tarquini who think that he held the opposite. For, although he does not mention this obligation in his definition of concordats, he certainly admits it when explaining his meaning. But this obligation is one of fidelity, not of justice, an obligation which makes a violation of the concordat without just cause an unlawful act, but not an invalid act. His Eminence Cardinal Francis Satolli explains with his usual depth and clearness the nature of the obligation which a pontiff is under of observing a concordat. His little work, of great authority, bears the title, "Prima principia de Concordatis". The learned author begins his investigation with the following reasoning from St. Thomas, I, xxi, 1, ad 3. The Angelic Doctor, asking whether justice exists in God, puts this objection to himself: The act of justice consists in the payment of a debt; but God is a debtor to no one, therefore it would seem that justice does not exist in God. To solve this difficulty the Holy Doctor first lays down the principle: to every one is due what is his own. He then inquires what one may call his own, and establishes that one's own is that which is for him, as a slave is his master's, precisely because, inasmuch as he is a slave, he is for his master. In the name debt, therefore, concludes the Angelic Doctor, is simplified a relation of exigency or necessity in a thing referring it to that for which it exists. Considering this relation more thoroughly, you will see that it is twofold: a relation by which a creature is for another creature and all creatures for God. Since this relation is twofold, there is also a twofold debt in the Divine plan; one by which a thing is due to God, the other by which a thing is due to the creature, and in both ways, says St. Thomas, God can make payment. For it is due to God that what the wisdom of his will has decreed should be fulfilled in creatures, as it is due to the creature that what has been ordained for it it should possess. Thus it is due to man that other animals should supply his needs. But this second debt depends on the first, since a thing is due to creatures because it is ordained for them through the relations established by the Divine wisdom. Wherefore, since God pays a debt to his creatures in this way only, he does not become his creatures' debtor, but the justice of God always looks to His own propriety, and by it he renders to himself what is His due. The author then passes to the Church and applies to her this argument. For to the Church also is due that the mission of her infallible and holy teaching power and manifestation of the saving quality of Christ's religion be accomplished in every State throughout the world. It is likewise due to the various States and their rulers that they have what is properly theirs. But this debt depends on the first in every relation between the Church, or Holy See, and a State; for it would be absurd were not all things ordered according to the relations established by the Divine wisdom, that is, to maintain religion, and to further the last end of all human life. The debt which the Church pays in tending to her supernatural end is one of justice, but of a justice which looks to the propriety of the Church herself, that is of the Holy See, a justice which renders to itself what is its due. In purely temporal matters the Church must observe the debt of justice such as temporal matters require, for in these she is not a superior nor is her spiritual end in question. But in all matters which pertain to the supernatural end of the Church, she can be under no obligation of strict debt to the State, but rather her obligation is to herself and to the spiritual purpose of her existence. And thus, generally speaking, she will be a debtor to States, through compact, since she owes to herself what her wisdom and never-failing desire for the spiritual good of mankind has shown her to be necessary.

But to present briefly what can certainly be said about concordats; concordats, as they have in fact often been agreed upon, often impose upon the Roman Pontiff a true obligation of commutative justice towards the state. This happens when a concordat is concluded about purely temporal matters, for instance, when the Church cedes some of her temporal possessions, or when she renounces some temporal or historical right. Such was the case in the concordat concluded between Urban VIII and the emperor, Ferdinand II, King of Bohemia; for in this instance the pope ceded some ecclesiastical possessions upon receiving others from Ferdinand in compensation; such, too, was the concordat with Colombia, in 1887, art. 29. But we must bear in mind that in such concordats the pope follows the common laws of contracts; therefore, if a contract be extorted from him by fraud or intimidation, or if the matter of the concordat be illicit, he or his successor can annul that contract, and such action is quite licit and valid. Moreover, if the matter of the concordat is illicit, the pope is evidently obliged to rescind the contract. Thus when Henry V had, by means of fear and fraud, urged Paschal II into certain points of agreement, this pope recalled those concessions in the First Council of the Lateran, on the 18th of March of the year 1112, because the entire council proclaimed that the concessions made to Henry were illicit—not a privilegium, but a pravilegium, as the council expressed it. Thus, too, if a pope should make over to someone temporal possessions without a just cause, his successor can evidently cancel such a contract validly, because a pope is only the administrator, and not the owner, of ecclesiastical possessions.

In concordats the Roman pontiff often grants secular rulers real privileges and indults; for the pontiff expressly declares that he is granting an indult, a privilege—that he is conceding this or that particular point, that he is making such or such a concession, or granting a favour. Instances of this kind may be found in the concordat with the Two Sicilies, of the year 1741, c. viii, art. 1, in another with the Two Sicilies of 1818, art. 28, in a concordat with Costa Rica, of 1853, art. 7; in a concordat with Haiti, of 1860, art. 4; in a concordat with Austria, of 1855, art. 25; with Ecuador, of 1863, art. 13, etc. Now if, as the "Corpus Juris Canonici", regula juris 16 in Sexto, has it, it is becoming that no favour granted by a sovereign should be recalled, it is fully evident from what we said above that this rule should hold good all the more when a privilege is granted in a form so solemn as that used in concordats; nor is it merely becoming for the pope not to recall such concessions, but he has an obligation of observing those very articles which contain the privileges. This follows from what we said already, and this the popes themselves affirm, sometimes, indeed, in rather stringent terms. Nevertheless, from the explanations given above it is evident that these terms of affirmation must be understood to signify merely that the pope is binding himself in so far as he is capable of binding himself; but whilst, in such concordats, he can bind himself in fidelity, he cannot bind himself in commutative justice; therefore, in those terms in which he affirms his obligation he binds himself in fidelity, but not in justice. And in fact, the popes have been much more scrupulously faithful in keeping these promises than the civil rulers themselves were, although the latter had taken upon themselves a real obligation of justice.

In the second edition of his celebrated work "De Romano Pontifice" (Prato, 1891), Palmieri maintains that, even if concordats were strictly bilateral contracts, nevertheless the power of the pope over them would not be lessened on that account. But although Palmieri is quite justly acknowledged as easily the foremost authority on ecclesiastical matters, both on account of his universal experience and his intellectual acumen, nevertheless, in this case his position seems to be untenable. In the first edition of the same work (Rome, 1877) he maintained that concordats are not bilateral contracts in the strict sense of the term; and he bases his argument for the opinion laid down in the second edition on the supposition that the obligation of a bilateral contract impedes, or renders illicit, any action of the pope against the provisions of the contract, but that, nevertheless, such action would still be valid. But this supposition is not true, unless we use the term bilateral contract in its widest sense; but this would be a question about the meaning of words, and would not touch the point at issue. But if we really mean to use the term, bilateral contract, in its obvious meaning, we must certainly hold that such a contract renders any action against its provisions null and void. The learned author adduces two instances, taken from the contract of buying and selling and from the engagement to marry, to prove his assertion; but neither of these two cases is to the point. For the engagement to marry, as Palmieri himself admits, is a bilateral contract, consisting in the mutual promise of future marriage; and yet, if, for instance, the bridegroom marries some other woman, his action is merely illicit, but not invalid. A sale of goods is likewise a bilateral contract, and it is completed only by handing over the article in question to the buyer; and yet, if the seller hands over to someone else the article that was already sold, the transfer of the article in question remains valid, even though the seller is bound to make good the damages caused to the first buyer. Therefore the two cases adduced by Palmieri prove nothing; for a bilateral contract renders invalid those actions merely which have the same subject-matter, and in so far only as they have the same subject-matter, as the contract itself. Thus it is evident that the engagement to marry, being a bilateral contract, renders null and void any new espousals, because the subject-matter is the same; but it does not render invalid a marriage with some other person, because marriage is quite another kind of contract. The case is similar in the contract of buying and selling: even if the buyer and seller have agreed and concluded the sale, so long as no transfer has taken place, that contract does certainly not render the seller incapable of making a valid transfer of the goods in question to some other buyer; but it undoubtedly deprives the seller of the power of selling the goods validly a second time, unless the transfer of the goods follows the sale. (Cf. De Lugo, "De justitiâ et iure", disp. xxvi, 163 sqq.)

So far we have been considering concordats in their relation to the pope; the secular rulers on their part are bound in commutative justice by many articles of a concordat, unless an exception be proved. But on Christian rulers all the articles of a concordat impose an additional obligation of obedience; for, as Tarquini testifies, a concordat may be rightly defined as "a particular ecclesiastical law for a certain country, enacted by the authority of the sovereign pontiff at the request of the ruler of that country, and strengthened by the special obligation, which that ruler takes upon himself, to observe its provisions forever."

Effect of Concordats

From all this it follows naturally that, since an obligation devolves upon the contracting parties, the terms of the concordat should be faithfully carried out and rigidly adhered to. Neither party, then, may without consulting the other refuse, except for grave reasons, to abide by the terms agreed upon. Moreover, in view of the fact that concordats have the force of ecclesiastical laws, they at once annul all laws and special customs that make for the contrary. All other laws, however, i. e. those which do not clash with the letter or spirit of the particular concordats, still hold; for concordats, barring of course those provisions which are especially mentioned, so far from making the jus commune inoperative, re-establish its validity. This is clear from the fact that the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff, when at the urgent request of a civil ruler he yields a point, or waives in certain cases the claims of the law of the Church, is obviously to insist on the duty of respecting and observing the ecclesiastical laws in all other details. Further, just as all other laws when properly promulgated bind the people, so concordats, inasmuch as they take on the form of civil laws are binding on the citizens of the country, and particularly the state officials; so much so that any infringement of them is equivalent to a violation of the civil laws. And rightly so, for concordats are promulgated as laws emanating from the power vested in the State as well as that in the Church. The sovereign Pontiff gives publicity to the terms through his cardinals assembled in consistory, and through a special Bull; the civil authority through the customary channels, i. e. in the legal way in which other state laws should and usually are promulgated.

Interpretation and Annulment of Concordats

Since it may very easily happen that from time to time a dispute or a disagreement may arise between the contracting parties as to the meaning that should be assigned to the articles agreed upon in the concordat, it seems advisable to determine how the controversy should be settled in the event of such a difficulty.

In the first place there can be no question that every effort should be made to settle the dispute amicably, a precaution that is founded upon the motives that lead to the formation of a concordat—namely, that of terminating if not forestalling all disputes. Consequently, it would be in direct opposition to the nature of the concordat if it should itself prove a fresh reason for misunderstandings. Its very nature, then, makes it imperative that in the event of a disagreement arising touching the meaning to be attached to the concordat, the question should as far as possible be settled without any rupture of friendly relations; and assuredly the Church has never been found wanting in her efforts to further this end. This precaution, it should be added, has often been taken in framing the concordats themselves. For example, in the concordat drawn up by Pius IX with the Emperor Francis Joseph I of Austria, in the year 1855, the following words were appended to art. 35: "Should, however, any difficulty arise in the future, His Holiness and His Imperial Majesty shall consult with each other that the question may be amicably decided." The very same words occur in the 13th art. of the concordat drawn up by the same pope with William I of Würtemberg, in the year 1857; so, too, in the 24th art. of that entered into by the same pope with Frederick I, Grand Duke of Baden in 1859; and again in the 24th art. of the concordat ratified with the President of Ecuador. Other instances of a similar nature could be cited. Since this clause, once it is subjoined to a concordat, becomes a part of the agreement and consequently assumes the nature of a papal as well as a civil law, it must be kept to the letter, so long, of course, as it is normally possible to do so.

True as all this is, it would be erroneous to maintain that both parties must concur in determining the meaning of a given clause or article. For he is the lawful interpreter who in the matter in question is the authoritative lawgiver. Now the pope always retains his jurisdiction and legislative power over matters that are wholly or partially of a spiritual nature, nor can he transmit the power to another. Consequently, the Sovereign Pontiff always remains the authoritative interpreter. It is plain, then, that should a discussion arise, and the civil authorities refuse their consent to a reasonable adjustment, the Church, in virtue of her higher judicial power, may exercise this right of annulling the concordat. It is clear, too, that, should the Church at any time pledge herself in the event of some future misunderstanding to discuss the situation with the civil authorities in order to bring about an amicable settlement, such an act must be looked upon as supererogatory; for when the Church waives any of her claims she makes a concession to the State, seeing that the highest community enjoys the right of settling a discussion even though the inferior body withholds its consent.

It may be well to subjoin a few canons that shall serve as guides in interpreting the various articles of a concordat. Evidently, the meaning of those articles which import a bilateral or unilateral contract must be judged by the laws that determine the exact scope of contracts, while the meaning of clauses that bear upon the granting of a privilege must be decided by an appeal to the laws for the interpretation of privileges. In its workings, however, the competent judge of a concordat is nowadays the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Far less, of course, is the State justified in rescinding concessions granted at the time the concordat was drawn up. For it frequently happens that the State promises to do only what it is already bound to by some pre-existing obligation; or at times the discussion turns on certain matters which the Church, by virtue of the indirect power she has over the State, enjoins, or again on temporal affairs of which the State had handed over to the Church full and absolute dominion. In the last case this forfeiture of dominion cannot be revoked, and for two reasons: first, because these gifts are usually compensatory for confiscated property—e. g., governments which had seized upon a considerable amount of ecclesiastical property have time and again promised in the concordats to endow seminaries, church fabrics, etc.—and secondly, because any gift once bestowed on an equal or a superior, even though it be purely gratuitous, may not be revoked, as such an act would be an exercise of jurisdiction which it cannot employ except against a subject. All, however, acknowledge that the Church may lawfully and justly refuse to abide by a concordat in all those circumstances which would permit or even oblige one to break a contract. Should there be question of privileges or indults granted by the pope in a concordat, it follows logically from what we have said that, given a just and adequate reason, they may validly and licitly be rescinded; if there be no reason, then such an action would still be valid, though not licit. It must be remembered, though, that the popes exercise their authority only for the gravest reasons, and after all the solemn formalities of the Roman Curia have been duly observed. Yet, should the pope rescind these privileges, he would not ordinarily be bound to make any compensation to the State, as compensation is strictly obligatory only where the privileges revoked are those technically called onerosa (see PRIVILEGE). Concordats, however, are not of this nature. All this applies with greater force to concessions wrung from the pope through chicanery, threats, or open violence, or which exceed the papal prerogative. Again, if it is a question of dominion over temporal goods that has passed from the Church to the State, the Church, it is clear, may not revoke this concession, although a spontaneous grant may be withdrawn.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCORDATS

Before the Eighteenth Century (1) The Concordat of Worms, or Pactum Calixtinum, 23 September, 1122, between Pope Callistus II and the Emperor Henry V, confirmed by the First Lateran Council, terminated the long investiture quarrel. The following were its chief provisions:

(2) Concordats with Portugal: one in 1288 between the bishops of Portugal and King Diniz after a violent persecution of the Church in that country, and ratified by Nicholas IV in 1289; another in 1516, between the Portuguese bishops and King Manuel the Fortunate, afterwards confirmed by Pope Leo X.

(3) The Concordat of 1516 between Leo X and Francis I of France, confirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council, was a result of the long controversy between the Holy See and the French Government over the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. Besides abolishing the Pragmatic Sanction, the terms of this concordat;

(4) The Concordat of Vienna was the outcome of the efforts on the part of the princes of the German Empire to put an end, at least in Germany, to the conflict between Eugene IV and the Council of Basle. After some negotiations Eugene issued four Bulls (Feb., 1447) which together constitute the so-called Concordat of the Princes. The first was a promise of a new council; the second contained a provisional acceptance of certain decrees of the Council of Basle; and the third and fourth dealt with the details of the agreement. Eugene IV died shortly after this and Nicholas V, his successor, confirmed the four Bulls. But a certain number of the princes being still unsatisfied, Frederick III thought it time to intervene. At a diet held at Aschaffenburg, he ordered the universal recognition of Nicholas V as lawful pope, and on 17 February, 1448, the Concordat of Vienna was agreed upon by the emperor and the papal legate, Carvajal. It was confirmed by Nicholas V on 19 March of the same year, and was subsequently recognized as the ecclesiastical code for Germany. Its principal terms were the following:

(5) The Concordat with Bohemia in 1630 was negotiated for that country between Urban VIII and the Emperor Ferdinand II; it followed on the re-establishment of the Catholic religion in Bohemia after the campaign directed by Ferdinand against the heretics. By its terms the Church renounced the goods that had been alienated during the progress of the heresy and received compensation from the revenues derived from a tax on salt which was levied for her benefit,

Eighteenth Century

Twelve concordats were made during the eighteenth century. Five of these with Sardinia: the first, in 1727, between Pope Benedict XIII and Victor Amadeus II confirmed the right possessed by the House of Savoy of immediate nomination to ecclesiastical offices; three between Benedict XIV and King Charles Emmanuel III (1741, 1742, 1750); the fifth in 1770 between Clement XIV and Charles Emmanuel III. Two were made with Spain, one in 1737 between Clement XII and Philip V, another in 1753 between Benedict XIV and King Ferdinand VI; one with the Two Sicilies in 1741, between Benedict XIV and Charles III; one with the Duchy of Milan in 1757, between Benedict XIV and the Empress Maria Teresa; one with Milan and Mantua in 1784, between Pius VI and the Emperor Joseph II; one in 1778 with Portugal; and one with Poland in 1736 between Clement XII and King Augustus Ill.

Nineteenth Century

The following were the most important concordats of the nineteenth century:

(1) The Concordat of 1801, to which a special article is devoted.

(2) The concordat between Louis XVIII and Pius VII in 1817, intended to re-establish the Concordat of 1516, abrogate the Organic Articles, and re-erect the suppressed bishoprics, but never carried out.

(3) The Concordat of Bavaria in 1817, concluded for Pius VII and Maximilian Joseph by Cardinal Consalvi and Baron von Höffelin. It dealt with the administration of church property, a new circumscription of dioceses, the erection of chapters, and especially nominations to ecclesiastical offices. An addition made by the State, and bearing a relation to the Bavarian concordat similar to that of the Organic Articles to the Concordat of 1801, gave rise to much dispute. In 1871 the Liberals tried in vain to have this concordat rejected.

(4) The Concordat with Sardinia in 1817, between Pope Pius VII and King Victor Emmanuel I. It reduced the number of bishoprics to three (Turin, Genoa, Vercelli), and contained regulations concerning the establishment of seminaries and chapters, etc.

(5) The Concordat with Prussia in 1821, concluded with the Holy See through Prince von Hardenberg, the chancellor. King Frederick William III on 23 August, 1821, recognized it as a law binding on Prussian Catholics. It contains the circumscription of the archbishoprics and bishoprics, and regulations concerning the erection of dioceses and chapters, the qualities of candidates, the taxation of episcopal and archiepiscopal churches by the Apostolic Camera, etc.

(6) The Concordat of the Upper Rhine Provinces in 1821, consisting of a papal Bull issued by Pius VII and accepted by the King of Würtemberg, the Grand Duke of Baden, the Elector of Hesse, the Grand Duke of Hesse, the Duke of Nassau, the free city of Frankfort, the Grand Duke of Mainz, the Dukes of Saxony and Oldenburg, the Prince of Waldeck, and the Hanseatic cities, Bremen and Lübeck. By this concordat the bishoprics were divided among the provinces as follows: Freiburg im Breisgau, the metropolis, was the see for Baden; Rottenburg for Würtemberg; Mains for Hesse-Darmstadt; Fulda for Kurhesse and Saxe-Weimar; Limburg for Nassau; and Frankfort.

(7) The Concordat with Belgium in 1827. It extended the provisions of the Concordat of 1801 (q. v.) to Belgium.

(8) The Concordat with the Upper Rhine Provinces in 1827 between Leo XII and the above-mentioned provinces. It contained agreements on the election of bishops, the processus informativus, the holding of a second election when the first had not been canonical or the person elected had not the necessary qualities, the institution of chapters, the establishment of seminaries, etc.

(9) The Concordat of Hanover, agreed upon between Pius VII and George IV, King of England and of Hanover, but published 26 August, 1824, by Leo XII in the Bull "Impensa Romanorum Pontificum sollicitudo". It contained decisions concerning the erection and support of the bishopric and chapter of Hildesheim, and the suspension of the state support of the Bishopric of Osnabrück. Both of these dioceses were placed directly under the Holy See; the concordat dealt also with the election and consecration of the bishop, the processus informativus, the institution of the cathedral chapter, and taxation by the Apostolic Camera.

(10) The Concordat of Oldenburg, arranged 5 January, 1830, between the Prince-Bishop of Ermeland as executor of the papal Bull "De salute animarum" and von Brandenstein, the Minister of State. It dealt with the distribution of parishes, the founding of certain canonries by the grand duke, and the establishment of a special ecclesiastical court in the Diocese of Münster.

(11) A concordat with Austria, concluded 18 August, 1855, b y Cardinal Viale Prela and the Prince-Bishop Joseph Othmar von Rauscher. It was ratified by the emperor 25 September and by the pope 3 November, but in 1870 was rejected by the Government.

(12) A concordat with Austria, 8 July, 1881, concerning the establishment of the hierarchy in Bosnia-Hersegovina.

(13) A concordat with Russia, concluded 3 August, 1847, published by Pius IX on 3 July, 1848. It was concerned with the dioceses of Russia and Poland and the episcopal rights;

(14) A concordat with Spain, 16 March, 1851, on the support of the Catholic religion, protection of episcopal rights, circumscription of dioceses, abolishment of exempt dioceses, constitution of chapters, establishment of seminaries, the right of the monarch to appoint to ecclesiastical offices, and the right of the Church to acquire property.

(15) A concordat with Spain, 25 November, 1859, supplementary to the Concordat of 1851.

(16) Concordat with Switzerland, 26 March, 1828. The episcopal see was transferred from Basle to Soleure.

(17) Concordat with Switzerland, 7 November, 1845, relative to the Diocese of St. Gall;

(18) Concordat with the Two Sicilies, 1834, between Pope Gregory XVI and King Ferdinand II, on the personal immunity of clerics.

(19) Concordat with Sardinia 1841, also on the immunity of clerics.

(20) Concordat with Tuscany, 1851, on ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the administration of church property,

(21) Concordat with San Salvador, 22 April, 1862. Among other provisions, the Catholic religion was declared the State religion, but other cults permitted; education was placed under the supervision of the bishops; the censorship of books by the bishop was recognized and upheld by the State; unrestricted communication with the pope was guaranteed to clergy and laity; tithes were abolished, the expenses of worship to be defrayed by the State; the president was given the right of patronage and of nominating to all bishoprics, and of appointing to six canonries; new dioceses should be erected by the pope and new parishes by the bishop. The bishop might introduce religious orders and communities; the vicar capitular should be chosen by the chapter according to the provisions of the Council of Trent; the ecclesiastical courts were recognized only for purely spiritual matters, temporal matters to be subject to the civil jurisdiction; the right to acquire and possess property was guaranteed to the Church; the confiscation of church property and the arbitrary union or suppression of benefices by the State was forbidden; the right to tax church property was ceded to the State; the prayer for the republic was granted, also the so-called privilegia castrensia, In matters not mentioned in the concordat the ordinary discipline of the Church should be observed.

(22) The concordat with Guatemala, 7 Oct., 1852, that with Honduras, 22 April, 1862, that with Nicaragua, 2 November, 1861, were similar to the concordat with San Salvador.

(23) Concordat with Venezuela, 26 July, 1862.

(24) Concordat with Ecuador, 29 May, 1851, similar to the Concordat with San Salvador.

(25) Concordat with Hayti and the West Indies, 28 March, 1860.

(26) Concordat with Colombia, 1887.

TARQUINI, Institutiones juris can., I, tit. iv: Appendix de concordatis; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1850), III, 58; SCHULTE, Die Lehre von den Quellen etc. 435 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decr. (Rome, 1905), I, 166 sq.; MOULART, L'Eglise et l'Etat (Louvain, 1887), 583 sqq; AZEVEDO, Della natura e carattere essenziale dei Concordati (Rome, 1872); FINK De Concordatis (Louvain, 1879); RADINI-TEDESCHI, Chiesa e Stato in ordine ai Concordati (Milan, 1887); TURINAZ, Les Concordats et l'obligation réciproque qu'ils imposent (Paris, 1888); SATOLLI, Prima principia . . . de Concordatis (Rome, 1888); ONCLAIR, La question des Concordats in Rev. Cath. des Institutions et du Droit for Oct., 1889; CAVAGNIS, Institutiones juris publici eccl. (Freiburg im Br., 1903); HAMMERSTEIN, De Ecclesiâ et Statu juridice consideratis (Trier, 1886); DE BONALD, Deux questions sur le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1801); LIBERATORE, La Chiesa e lo Stato (Naples, 1872), iii, arts. 13, 14; ID., Del diritto pubblico eccl. (Prato, 1887), iv, art. 8; DE LUISE, De jure publico Eccl. Cath. (Paris, 1877), V; BALDI, De nativâ et peculiari indole Concordatorum (Rome, 1883); GIOBBIO, I Concordati (Monza, 1900); SMITH, Elements of Eccl. Law (New York, 1878), 51 sqq.

RENARD in Dict. de théol. catholique, s. v.; HERGENRÖTHER in Kirchenlex., s. v.—For concordats with Spain: HERGENRÖTHER, Spaniens Verhandlungen mit dem römischen Stuhle in Archiv f. katholischen Kirchenrecht, X.—For concordats with Central America: SENTIS, Die Concordate des römischen Stuhles mit den Republiken Centralamerikas in Archiv f. katholischen Kirchenrecht, XII, 225; NUSSI, Quinquaginta Conventiones de Rebus Ecclesiasticis inter S. Sedem et Civilem Potestatem variis formis init (Rome, 1869); IDEM, Conventiones . . . init sub Pontificatu . . . Leonis PP. XIII (Rome, 1893).

LEO A. KELLY & BENEDETTO OJETTI

The French Concordat of 1801

This name is given to the convention of the 26th Messidor, year IX (July 16, 1802), whereby Pope Pius VII and Bonaparte, First Consul, re-established the Catholic Church in France. Bonaparte understood that the restoration of religious peace was above all things necessary for the peace of the country. The hostility of the Vendeans to the new state of affairs which resulted from the Revolution was due chiefly to the fact that their Catholic consciences were outraged by the Revolutionary laws. Of the 136 sees of ancient France a certain number had lost their titulars by death; the titulars of many others had been forced to emigrate. In Paris the Cathedral of Notre-Dame and the church of St-Sulpice were in the possession of "constitutional" clergy; Royer, a "constitutional" bishop, had taken the place of Mgr. de Juigné, the lawful Archbishop of Paris, an émigré; even in the churches which the Catholics had recovered, the rites of the "Theophilanthropists" and those of the "Decadi" were also celebrated. The nation suffered from this religious anarchy, and the wishes of the people coincided with Bonaparte's projected policy to restore the Catholic Church and Catholic worship to their normal condition in France.

I. THE FIRST ADVANCES

On the 25th of June, 1800, Bonaparte, after his victory at Marengo, passed through Vercelli, where he paid a visit to Cardinal Martiniana, bishop of that city. He asked that prelate to go to Rome and inform Pius VII that Bonaparte wished to make him a present of thirty million French Catholics; that the first consul desired to reorganize the French dioceses, while lessening their number; that the émigré bishops should be induced to resign their sees; that France should have a new clergy untrammelled by past political conditions; that the pope's spiritual jurisdiction in France should be restored. Martiniana faithfully reported these words to Pius VII. It was only a few months before that Pius VI had died at Valence, a prisoner of revolutionary France. Pius VII, when elected at Venice, had announced his accession to the legitimate government of Louis XVIII, not to that of the Republic; and now Bonaparte, the representative of this de facto government, was making overtures of peace to the Holy See on the very morrow of his great victory. His action naturally caused the greatest surprise at Rome. The difficulties in the way, however, were very serious. They arose, chiefly;

(1) from the susceptibilities of the émigré bishops, from the future Louis XVIII, and from Cardinal Maury, who was suspicious of any attempt at reconciliation between the Roman Church and the new France;

(2) from the susceptibilities of the former revolutionaries, now the courtiers of Napoleon, but still imbued with the irreligious philosophy of the eighteenth century.

The distinctive mark of the negotiations, taken as a whole, is the fact that the French bishops, whether still abroad or returned to their own country, had no heart whatever in them. The concordat as finally arranged practically ignored their existence.

II. THE THREE PHASES OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

First Phase (5 November, 1800-10 March, 1801)

Spina, titular Archbishop of Corinth, accompanied by Caselli, General of the Servites, arrived in Paris, on 5 November, 1800. Bernier, who had been parish priest of Saint-Laud, at Angers, and famous for the part he had played in the wars of La Vendée, was instructed by Bonaparte to confer with Spina. Four proposals for a concordat were submitted in turn to the pope's representative, who felt that he had no right to sign them without referring them to the Holy See. Finally, after numerous delays, for which Talleyrand was responsible, a fifth proposal, written by Napoleon himself, was brought to Rome, on 10 March, by the courier Palmoni.

Second Phase (10 March, 1801-6 June, 1801)

Cacault, member of the Corps Legislatif, appointed as minister plenipotentiary to the Holy See, reached Rome on 8 April, 1801. He had received instructions from Napoleon to treat the pope as if he had 200,000 men. He was a good Christian, and anxious to bring the work of the concordat to a successful issue. What Bonaparte wished, however, was the immediate acceptance by Rome of his plan of the concordat; on the other hand, the cardinals to whom Pius VII had submitted it took two months to study it. On 12 May, 1801, the very day on which Napoleon, at Malmaison, was complaining to Spina of the slowness of the Holy See, the cardinals to whom the proposed concordat had been submitted sent yet another proposal to Paris. But, before this last proposal had reached its destination, Cacault received an ultimatum from Talleyrand, to the effect that he must leave Rome if, after an interval of five days, the concordat proposed by Bonaparte had not been signed by Pius VII. All might, even then, have been broken off, had the situation not been saved by Cacault. He left Rome, leaving his secretary Artaud there, but suggested to the Holy See the idea of sending Consalvi himself, Secretary of State to Pius VII, to treat with Bonaparte. On 6 June, 1801, Artaud and Consalvi left Rome in the same carriage.

Third Phase (6 June, 1801-15 July, 1801)

Consalvi, after an audience with Bonaparte, discussed the various points of the proposed concordat with Bernier, and on 12 July they had reached an agreement. Bonaparte thereupon instructed his brother Joseph, Cretet, councillor of state, and Bernier to sign the concordat with Consalvi, Spina, and Caselli. During the day of the 13th, Bernier sent Consalvi a minute, adding: "Here is what they will propose to you at first; read it well, examine everything, despair of nothing." Between this minute and the proposal concerning which Consalvi and Bernier had come to the agreement of the day before, there were certain remarkable differences with regard to the publicity of worship; a clause relative to married priests, and always rejected by Consalvi, was inserted; the clauses relating to seminaries, to chapters, and that of the profession of the Catholic Faith by the consuls, to which the Holy See attached great importance were suppressed. Consalvi received the impression -- he expresses it in his "Memoirs", written in 1812 -- that the French Government intended to deceive him by substituting a fresh text for the text he had accepted; and d'Haussonville, in his book, "The Roman Church and the First Empire", has formally impugned the good faith of Bonaparte's representatives. Bernier's aforementioned note of 13 July, recently discovered by Cardinal Mathieu, asking Consalvi to "read" and "examine" carefully, proves that the French Government did not intend any deception; nevertheless, the presentation of this new draft reopened the whole question. Talleyrand had taken the initiative in this matter; for twenty consecutive hours Bonaparte's three plenipotentiaries and those of the Holy See carried on their discussion. The plan on which they finally agreed was thrown into the fire by Bonaparte, who that evening, at dinner, gave way to a violent fit of anger against Consalvi. Finally, on 15 July, a conference of twelve hours ended in a definite agreement; on the 16th Bonaparte approved of it. Pius VII, on his part, after consultation with the cardinals, sanctioned this arrangement, 11 August; on 10 September the signatures were exchanged, and on 18 April, 1802, Bonaparte caused the publication of the concordat and the reconciliation of France with the Church to be solemnly celebrated in the cathedral of Notre-Dame at Paris.

III. THE STIPULATIONS OF THE CONCORDAT

The French Government by the concordat recognized the Catholic religion as the religion of the great majority of Frenchmen. The phrase was no longer as in former times, the religion of the State. But it was a question of a personal profession of Catholicism on the part of the Consuls of the Republic. The Holy See had insisted on this mention, and it was only on this condition that the pope agreed to grant to the State police power in the matter of public worship. This question had been one of the most troublesome that arose during the course of the deliberations. In the matter of these police powers it had been agreed after many difficulties that the following should stand as Article I of the concordat: "The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion shall be freely exercised in France. Its worship shall be public while conforming to such police regulations as the government shall consider necessary to public tranquillity." The pope agreed to a fresh circumscription of the French dioceses. When this subsequently took place, of the 136 sees only 60 were retained. The pope promised to inform the actual titulars of the dioceses that he should expect from them every sacrifice, even that of their sees.

According to Articles 4 and 5 the French Government was to present the new bishops, but the pope was to give them canonical institution. (See PRESENTATION; INSTITUTION, CANONICAL; NOMINATION.) The bishops were to appoint as parish priests such persons only as were acceptable to the Government (Art. 9); the latter, in turn, stipulated that such churches as had not been alienated, and were necessary for worship, would be placed "at the disposition" of the bishops (Art. 12).

The Church agreed not to trouble the consciences of those citizens who, during the Revolution, had become possessed of ecclesiastical property (Art. 13); on the other hand the Government promised the bishops and parish priests a fitting maintenance (sustentationem, Art. 14).

Such were the principal stipulations of the concordat. Certain of its articles have been fully discussed, particularly by canonists and jurists, notably Articles 5, 12, and 14, relating to the nomination of bishops, the use of churches, and the maintenance of the clergy. Moreover, the law known as "The Organic Articles" (see ARTICLES, THE ORGANIC), promulgated in April, 1802, and always upheld by later French governments in spite of the protest of the pope, made immediately after its publication, has in various ways infringed on the spirit of the concordat and given rise during the nineteenth century to frequent disputes between Church and State in France.

IV. RESULT OF THE CONCORDAT

The concordat, notwithstanding the addition of the Organic Articles, must be credited with having restored peace to the consciences of the French people on the very morrow of the Revolution. To it also was due the reorganization of Catholicism in France, under the protection of the Holy See. It was also of great moment in the history of the Church. Only a few years after Josephinism and Febronianism had disputed the pope's rights to govern the Church, the Papacy and the Revolution, in the persons of Pius VII and Napoleon, came to an understanding which gave France a new episcopate and marked the final defeat of Gallicanism.

V. FATE OP THE CONCORDAT

The French law of 9 December, 1905, on the Separation of Church and State, against which Pius X protested in his Allocution of 11 December, 1905, was based on the principle that the State of France should no longer recognize the Catholic Church, but only distinct associations cultuelles, i. e. associations formed in each parish for the purpose of worship "in accordance with the rules governing the organization of worship in general". In case of the non-formation of such associations destined to take over the property, real and personal, of the churches or fabriques (see BUILDINGS, ECCLESIASTICAL; FABRICA ECCLESIÆ), this property was to be forever lost to the Church and to be turned over by decree to the charitable establishments of the respective communes. By the Encyclical "Gravissimo Officii", of 10 August, 1906, the pope forbade the formation of these associations cultuelles or associations for worship. Rome feared that they would furnish the State with a pretext for interfering with the internal life of the Church, and would offer to the laity a constant temptation to control the religious life of the parish. Thereupon, the State applied strictly the aforementioned law, considered the fabriques, i. e. the hitherto legally-recognized churches, as no longer existing, and, in the absence of associations cultuelles to take up their inheritance, gave over all their property to charitable establishments (établissements de bienfaisance). Exception was made for the church edifices actually used for worship; at the same time nothing was done concerning the numberless legal questions that arise apropos of these edifices, e. g. right of ownership, right of use, repairs, etc. At the present writing, therefore (end of 1908), the Church of France, stripped of all her property, is barely tolerated in her religious edifices, and has only a precarious enjoyment of them. On the other hand, since ecclesiastical authority has forbidden the only kind of corporations (associations cultuelles) which the State recognizes as authorized to collect funds for purposes of worship, the Church has no means of putting together in a legal and regular way such funds or capital as may be required for the ordinary needs of public worship. Thus the churches of France live from day to day; neither the parish nor the diocese can own any fund, however small, which the parish priest or the bishop is free to hand down to his successors; all this because the State stubbornly insists that only the above-described associations cultuelles (which it knows are impossible for French Catholics) shall be clothed with the right of ownership for purposes of worship. Though the present condition is necessarily a transitory one, it appears, unfortunately, to offer one permanent element, i. e. the certain loss of all the property once belonging to the fabriques. The worst enemies of the French clergy must admit that, in order to safeguard its principles, the Church which they accuse of avarice has sacrificed without hesitation all its temporal goods. (See CONCORDAT; FRANCE; CONSALVI, ERCOLE; PIUS VII; NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.)

SECHÉ, Les origines du Concordat (2 vols., Paris, 1894); SICARD, L'Ancien clergé de France (Paris, 1903), III; GOYAU, Les origines populaires du Concordat in Autour du catholicisme social (Paris, 1906); LANZAC LABORIE, Paris sous Napoléon (Paris,1905 and 1907); BOULAY DE LA MEURTHE, Documents sur la négociation du Concordat (Paris, 1891-97); MATHIEU, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1903); RINIERI, La diplomatie Pontificale au XIXe siècle; Le Concordat entre Pie VII et le Premier Consul, tr. into Fr. by VERDIER (Paris, 1903). -- The last two works have really given an entirely new version of the history of the third phase of the negotiations, thanks to the fresh documents unknown to former historians, D'HAUSSONVILLE, CRÉTINEAU-JOLY, and THEINER. -- OLLIVIER, Nouveau manuel de droit ecclésiastique français (Paris, 1886); CROUZIL, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1904); BAUDRILLART, Quatre cents ans de Concordat (Paris, 1905); DE BROGLIE, Le Concordat (Paris, 1893); PERRAUD, La discussion concordataire (Paris, 1892); SÉVESTRE, Le Concordat (2d ed., Paris, 1906), the best documentary work. -- D'HAUSSONVILLE, Après la séparation (Paris, 1906); GABRIEL AUBRAY, La solution libératrice (Paris 1906); JENOUVRIER, Exposé de la situation légale de l'église en France (Paris, 1906); LAMARZELLE ET TAUDIÈRE, Commentaire de la loi du 9 Décembre, 1905 (Paris 1906); see also HOGAN, Church and State in France in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1892), 333 sqq.; PARSONS, The Third French Republic as a Persecutor of the Church, ibid. (1899), 1 sqq.; BODLEY, The Church in France (London, 1906).

GEORGES GOYAU

Diocese of Concordia

(CONCORDIA VENETA, or JULIA; CONCORDIENSIS).

Suffragan of Venice. Concordia is an ancient Venetian city, called by the Romans Colonia Concordia, and is situated between the Rivers Tagliamento and Livenza, not far from the Adriatic. Today there remain of the city only ruins and the ancient cathedral. During the fifth century the city was destroyed by Attila and again in 606 by the Lombards, after which it was never rebuilt. The eighty-nine martyrs of Concordia, who were put to death under Diocletian, are held in great veneration. Its first known bishop is Clarissimus, who, at a provincial synod of Aquileia in 579, helped to prolong the Schism of the Three Chapters; this council was attended by Augustinus, later Bishop of Concordia, who in 590 signed the petition presented by the schismatics to Emperor Mauricius. Bishop Johannes transferred the episcopal residence to Caorle (606), retaining, however, the title of Concordia. The medieval bishops seem to have resided near the ancient cathedral, and to have wielded temporal power, which, however, they were unable to retain. In 1587, during the episcopate of Matteo Sanudo, the episcopal residence was definitely transferred to Portogruaro. The diocese has a population of 258,315, with 129 parishes, 231 churches and chapels, 264 secular and 2 regular priests, 9 religious houses of women, and a Collegio di Pio X for African missions.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), X, 417-75; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 418-23: DEGANI, La Diocesi di Concordia, notizie e documenti (San Vito, 1880); ZAMBALDI, Monumenti storici di Concordia (San Vito, 1840).

U. BENIGNI.

Diocese of Concordia

(CONCORDIENSIS IN AMERICA.)

The Diocese of Concordia was erected 2 August, 1887, and is situated in the northwestern part of Kansas, U.S.A. It is bounded on the west by Colorado; on the north, by Nebraska; east, by the east lines of Washington, Riley, Geary, Dickinson; on the south, by the south lines of Dickinson, Saline, Ellsworth, Russell, Ellis, Trego, Gove, Logan, and Wallace Counties. Area, 26,685 sq. miles.

In 1886 the Diocese of Leavenworth, Kansas, was divided into three new sees, Leavenworth, Wichita, and Concordia. On 9 August, 1887, the Rev. Richard Scannell of Nashville, Tennessee, was nominated first Bishop of Concordia; and governed the see until 30 January, 1891, when he was transferred to Omaha. The Bishop of Wichita, Kansas, then became administrator of Concordia, and it was not until 1897 that a bishop was again appointed in the person of the Rev. T.J. Butler of Chicago, who died in Rome, however, 17 July, 1897, before receiving episcopal consecration. On 21 September, 1898, the Very Rev. John F. Cunningham, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Leavenworth, was consecrated in that city, Bishop of Concordia. Born in 1842, in the County Kerry, Ireland, he made his studies at St. Benedict's College, Atchison, Kansas, and at St. Francis' Seminary, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and was ordained priest at Leavenworth, 8 August, 1865. After his consecration he devoted himself to the multiplication of schools and institutions of learning and charity. The cathedral of Concordia, a stone structure of Gothic architecture, dedicated in 1902, took the place of a modest little church erected by the Rev. Louis Mollier in 1874.

In 1884 a boarding-school for young ladies under the supervision of the Sisters of St. Joseph was established near the cathedral. It has since moved to the imposing edifice known as the Nazareth Academy. It is the mother-house and novitiate of these sisters, who have branch houses, missions, and schools in Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Michigan, and Missouri. The old academy has been turned into a hospital. The Capuchin Fathers, who settled early in the western part of the diocese in and about Victoria, have built many churches and schools and have monasteries at Hays City, Munjor, and Victoria. They have also worked efficiently among the Russian immigrants of that portion of the diocese, aided by the Sisters of St. Agnes.

From 1898 to 1907, 45 churches and 20 schools were built, exclusive of the opening of many new missions and stations. There are 51 secular and 15 religious priests, attending 91 churches, 30 stations, and 4 chapels. The children in the parochial schools number about 2482. Two academies, at Concordia and Abilene, have about 135 pupils. The Catholic population of the diocese is 26,125.

A.T. ENNIS

Concubinage

At the present day, the state -- more or less permanent -- of a man and woman living together in illicit intercourse. In its strict sense it is used of those unions only in which the man and the woman are free from any obligation arising from a vow, the state of matrimony or Holy Orders, or the fact of relationship or affinity; it is immaterial whether the parties dwell together or not, the repetition or continuance of illicit relations between the same persons being the essential element.

However, the meaning conveyed by the term has not always been the same; in the Old Testament, for instance, a legitimate spouse, if of an inferior social grade, or a bondwoman, is often given the appellation of concubine, not to call in question the validity of her marriage, but to indicate that she did not share in her husband's rank or property nor in the administration of the household to the same extent as the principal wife. From Genesis 21:9-14, we see that her dismissal and that of her children was permissible. But in those Scriptural times, when polygamy was permitted or at least tolerated, such a concubine was not the only marriage partner. Thus Lia and Rachel, the first two spouses of Jacob, had the full social standing of wives, while Bala and Zelpha, both bondwomen, were his concubines, married for the purpose of bearing children for Rachel and Lia (Genesis 30:3, 9, 13). Here, therefore, the main difference between the state of legitimate marriage properly so called and that of legitimate concubinage is to be found in the disparity of rank which characterized the latter.

The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church, who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).

The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001). The refractory are to be excommunicated until such time as they shall obey and do penance.

With the destruction of the Roman Empire and the consequent decline of knowledge of the Roman law, its institution of legitimate concubinage fell into disuse, and concubinage came more and more to have only the modern significance, that of a permanent illicit union, and as such was variously proceeded against by the Church. The clandestine marriages which gradually came to be tolerated in the Middle Ages, as they lacked the formality of a public sanction by the Church, can be considered as a species of legitimate concubinage. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), Sess. XXIV, chap. i, not only renewed the old ecclesiastical penalties against concubinage, but added fresh ones, also forbade and rendered null and void all clandestine unions, thus forever doing away with even the appearance of legitimate concubinage. From that time the modern invidious idea of the term alone obtains. The decrees of Trent, however, were in force only in countries strictly Catholic; the new marriage law (Ne temere) of Pius X (1908) extends the prohibition against clandestine marriages to Catholics the world over.

NOLDIN, Summa theologi moralis: de sexto (6th ed., Innsbruck, 1906); Dict. de droit canonique, s. v. Concubinage (Paris, 1901); Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, ed. RICHTER (Leipzig, 1853); WANDINGER in Kirchenlex (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1891); DOLHAGARAY in Dict. de théol cath. (Paris, 1906).

H.A. GAYNOR

Concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged. As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not. The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; no was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom., vii, 21-25)

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

• Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;
• concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;
• baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.

The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature. (See GRACE, JUSTIFICATION, SIN.)

JOHN J. MING

Concursus

Concursus is a special competitive examination prescribed in canon law for all aspirants to certain ecclesiastical offices to which is attached the cure of souls. There were no parish priests, properly speaking, during the first three hundred years of the Christian Era. A single church erected in the residential city of the bishop was the centre to which people living in city and country repaired on Sundays and festivals to hear Mass, receive instruction, and approach the Sacraments. Gradual growth in church-membership called for the erection of additional churches to accommodate the faithful. In these churches sacred functions were conducted by priests residing at the cathedrals. Consequently, the cathedral was the only parish in each diocese and the bishop, as chief pastor, exercised the care of souls throughout the diocese. A similar reason led to the organization of rural parishes during the course of the fourth century. With one or two exceptions, parishes were not organized in cities before the year 1000. The first step towards the establishment of city parishes, was taken in the Council of Limoges (1032). The amicable settlement of disputes involving a departure from the old regime paved the way for the organization of city parishes in France. Italy was not slow in following the example of France. (Lupi, "De parochis ante annum Christi millesimum", Bergamo, 1788; Muratori, "Dissert. de parœciis et plebibus" in "Antiq. Ital.", VI, 359; Nardi, "Dei parrochi, opera di antichità sacra", Pesaro, 1829-30; Drouyn, "L'histoire paroissiale" in "Rev. Cath. de Bordeaux", 1881, III, 233, and "Bull. hist. arch. du dioc. Dijon", 1887, V, 225; Zorell, "Die Entwickelung des Parochialsystems" in "Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht", 1902-3.) Departures from traditional methods gradually took place in other countries until the organization of city and country parishes became general throughout the Church (see PARISH).

The new regime paved the way for the admission of a general principle whereby ecclesiastical benefices, especially those of major importance, with cure of souls or parochial responsibility attached, were conferred on none save those duly qualified to hold them (see BENEFICE). Conscientious recognition of this principle was repeatedly inculcated, e. g. by Alexander III, Innocent III, and Gregory X. So long as ecclesiastics were not ordained absolutely, but for some specific office in each diocese, the canonical examinations for orders served naturally as a criterion to determine appointments to benefices. In time, however, this ancient method of ordination fell into decay, and under Innocent III (1198-1216) separate examinations were inaugurated as the most satisfactory method of making appointments to benefices that carried with them the cure of souls (beneficia curata). In order to attain greater security in providing for the salvation of souls, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, ch. xviii) obliged bishops to assign to each parish a permanent parish priest who would know his parishioners. The better to realize this design, the same council instituted the concursus, a competitive examination given to candidates seeking appointment as pastors of (canonical) parishes. According to the Tridentine legislation, bishops must designate a day for this examination. At the specified time, such as have signified their intention of undergoing this test are examined by the bishop or his vicar-general and by no less than three synodal examiners (q. v.). The bishop is required to appoint the one he judges most worthy among those passing a satisfactory examination.

Though the Tridentine regulations are quite clear, some canonists claimed that failure to observe them rendered appointments illicit, not invalid, while others held that bishops were not bound to appoint the most worthy candidate, but merely one passing a creditable examination. To dissipate such errors Pius V issued the Constitution "In conferendis" (18 May, 1567). Later on, to forestall the possibility of groundless appeals on the part of dissatisfied competitors, as well as to ensure strict justice to candidates, Clement XI issued (18 Jan., 1721) a decree regarding the manner of conducting examinations, and the manner of dealing with those entering appeals against the decision of the examiners or the appointment of the bishop. However, Clement XI's regulations occasioned various complaints, and to remedy these difficulties, as well as to complete ecclesiastical legislation concerning the concursus, Benedict XIV issued the important Constitution, "Cum illud" (14 Dec., 1742). A survey of the various stages of ecclesiastical legislation on this question will naturally exhibit a fair summary of its leading points.

In the first place, appointments to canonically erected parishes are null when no concursus has been held, unless the Tridentine legislation has been abrogated by long usage or special permission of the Holy see. Questions and answers pertaining to a concursus must be committed to writing. The matter of the examination is taken from theology (moral and dogmatic), liturgy, and ecclesiastical law, and is chiefly of a practical character. A Lesson in catechism and a brief sermon may be prepared by the candidates. All competitors are examined in the same place and at the same time. The bishop is not justified in appointing simply a worthy competitor, but is obliged to choose the candidate he deems the most worthy among those approved by the examiners, whose office is exhausted when they have attested the worthiness (idoneitas) of the various competitors. The examiners, however, are bound to consider, not only the learning, but also the age, prudence, integrity, past services, and other qualifications of competitors. Candidates not appointed are at liberty to enter an appeal to the metropolitan, and then to the Holy See, but this does not suspend meanwhile the execution of the episcopal decision. The judge to whom such an appeal is made must base his decision on the proceedings of the concursus already held; this precludes a second concursus or the introduction of additional evidence. While this is the general ecclesiastical law, certain exceptions must be noted. This law does not cover appointments to parishes where the incumbent is not permanently installed nor to parishes whose revenues are not sufficient to justify such proceedings as a concursus involves. Nor, according to the common law, is a concursus advisable when the bishop, after hearing the advice of the synodal examiners, apprehends serious disorders in case a concursus were to take place.

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) decreed that in the United States one in every ten parishes of a diocese should become a permanent rectorship. To inaugurate this plan, the council ruled that the establishment of such rectorships, and the appointment of incumbents thereunto should take place no later than three years after the promulgation of its decrees. Bishops were allowed to name permanent rectors for the first time without a concursus, though they were required to seek the advice of their consultors. Thereafter the appointments of such rectors are null unless a concursus takes place. In a special case the bishop may waive the concursus in favour of an ecclesiastic whose learning is well known or whose services to religion are noteworthy, provided the advice of the synodal or pro-synodal examiners is taken. (Conc. Plen. Balt. III, ch. vi, nos. 40 sqq.) The method of conducting a concursus in this country is substantially the same as that prescribed by the general law of the Church. Candidates for admission to a concursus must have creditably exercised the ministry in a diocese no less than ten years, and, during that time, must have given evidence of ability to direct the temporal and spiritual affairs of a parish. Bishops are obliged to appoint the most worthy of the competitors. Examiners should approve all worthy candidates. The right of determining the most worthy of those approved is vested in the bishop. Appeals (q. v.) and the method of treating them are subject to the general ecclesiastical law. Finally, where circumstances militate against the feasibility of a concursus as often as a permanent rectorship is to be filled, the Holy See has tolerated or allowed the holding, under the conditions already specified, of general annual examinations, to determine the standing of candidates in ecclesiastical science, while judgment concerning the other necessary qualifications is given whenever a permanent rectorship is vacated. Those passing the examination once are counted worthy, in point of learning, for appointment to any permanent rectorship falling vacant within a given period, usually not more than six years, after such an examination. Should they wish to enjoy a like title after that period, success in another examination is required.

Canada has no permanent rectorship. As a consequence, the manner of appointing rectors of parishes is subject to the discretion of the bishops. (Gignac, Comp. Juris eccl. ad usum cleri Canadensis, Quebec, 1901, De Personis, p. 355.) In England no concursus is held to determine appointments to permanent rectorships (Taunton, The Law of the Church, London, 1906, p. 231). According to the decree of the Synod of Maynooth held in 1900, legislation similar to that of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore was adopted for determining appointments to parishes in the various dioceses of Ireland. Since 1895 the law of the concursus obtains also in the Commonwealth of Australia (Second Plen. Council of Australia, No. 47 sqq.). The acts of diocesan and provincial councils, sessions of Roman Congregations, and papal conclaves testify that the Tridentine legislation concerning the concursus has long prevailed in Italy. The same regulations were introduced into Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century; they obtain also in South America. While the observance of the law was general throughout France before the middle of the seventeenth century, changed conditions long since led to its abrogation in that country (Duballet, Journal de droit canon., 1891, 452-74). In Belgium the Synod of Mechlin (1570) adopted the Tridentine regulations, but since then, save for Liège, the earlier freedom of episcopal collation has returned (Vering, 471). At present, German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Prussian bishops base their appreciation of a candidate's learning on the results of general examinations at regular intervals. Exception being made for minor differences, the above-described regulations govern the examinations in those countries. The consideration of other necessary qualifications is made whenever a vacancy occurs and an appointment follows. While in other places bishops may use their own discretion in appointing rectors, the Holy See bespeaks even in such places all possible conformity to the spirit of the Tridentrne law. It may be added that in Austria, since Joseph II, the State has insisted on the parochial concursus, and has embodied it in art. 24 of the Concordat.

SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1887), I, 647; BAART Legal Formulary (New York, 1898), 100 sqq.; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), 227-31; OJETTI, Synopsis Rerum Moralium et juris pontificii (Prato, 1904); LESÊTRE, La paroisse (Paris, 1906); DIENDORFER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Concurs; LINGG, Gesch. des tridentinischen Pfarrconcurses (Bamberg, 1880); BOUIX, De Parocho (Paris, 1855), 355; Analecta juris pontif. (Paris, 1867), 969; Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, II, 385; VERING, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts.

J. D. O'NEILL.

Charles-Marie de la Condamine

Explorer and physicist, b. at Paris, 28 January, 1701; d. there 4 February, 1774. After a brief military career he turned to scientific pursuits and explored the coasts of Africa and Asia Minor on the Mediterranean. In 1735, he was selected to direct an expedition to the equatorial regions of South America in order to determine the form of the earth by measuring a meridian and thus establishing the flattening of our globe towards the poles. His companions were Pierre Bouguer and Louis Godin des Odonais. Two officers of the Spanish marine, Jorge Juan and Antonio de Ulloa, represented the Government of Spain on the voyage and also made independent observations in the interior. Condamine went to Ecuador and there began his labours, making a fairly accurate triangulation of the mountainous parts and the western sections of Ecuador. On this occasion he discovered that tall mountains deflect the pendulum by their attraction. He remained eight years in South America, then returned to France, where he was chosen member of the Academy of Sciences and of the French Academy and received the cross of Saint Lazarus. While Condamine on account of his ambition and inclination to controversy was a disagreeable character, as an explorer and physicist he stands very high. The topographical work performed by him or under his direction suffered from the relative imperfections of the instruments in use in his time, but the results obtained were astonishing. Not only in physiography and physical geography, but in other branches also his expedition opened a new perspective to investigation. It was the starting point for more extensive explorations of tropical America. The countries he visited became and remained thereafter, classical ground in the annals of natural science. It is claimed that he introduced caoutchouc into Europe, and he also tried to introduce inoculation for smallpox in France.

Interest in Condamine centring in his South American work, books on that expedition become the prominent source of information regarding the most important period of his life; especially his own writings, chief of which were: Journal du voyage fait par ordre du Roi à l'équateur (Paris, 1751); Relation abrégée d'un voyage dans l'intérieur de l'Amérique méridionale (Paris, 1745; 2d ed., 1778); Histoire des pyramides de Quito (Paris, 1751). Frequent references are found in the works of HUMBOLDT, also, DE ULLOA AND JUAN, Relación histórica del viage á la América Meridional hecho de orden de S. Mag. para medir algunos grados de meridiano terrestre (Madrid, 1748).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac

A French philosopher, born at Grenoble, 30 September, 1715; died near Beaugency (Loiret), 3 August, 1780. He was the brother of the Abbé de Mably and was himself Abbé of Mureaux. Thanks to the resources of his benefice, he was able to follow his natural inclinations and devote himself wholly to study, for which purpose he retired into solitude. About 1755 he was chosen preceptor of the Duke of Parma, the grandson of Louis XV, for whom he wrote his "Cours d'études". The education of the prince being completed, Condillac was elected in 1768 to succeed the Abbé d'Olivet as a member of the French Academy. He was present but once at the sessions--on the day of his reception--and then retired to his estate of Flux near Beaugency where he spent the remainder of his days.

From an intellectual point of view, Condillac's life may be divided into two periods. During the first he simply developed the theories of Locke. He published in 1746 his "Essai sur l' origine des connaissances humaines" which is a summary of Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding", and in 1749 his "Traité des systemes" wherein he attacks the innate ideas and abstract systems of Descartes, Malebranche, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Boursier. The latter period, devoted to more original work, begins with the "Traité des sensations" in 1754, the central idea of which is to renew the human understanding by a fundamental analysis of the first data of mental experience in man's conscious life. In 1755 he published his "Traité des animaux", a sequel to the "Traité des sensations"; and then his "Cours d'études" which includes "Grammaire", "L'Art d'écrire", "L'Art de raisonner", "L'Art de penser", "L'histoire générale des hommes et des empires", edited in 13 vols., Parma, 1769-1773. This was placed on the Index in 1836. In 1776 appeared his book on "Le commerce et le gouvernement considérés relativement l'un à l'autre" in which he exposes his principles of the right to property and his theory of economics. In 1780, a few months before his death, he published his "Logique", an elementary treatise composed at the request of the council of public instruction of Poland. His "Langue des calculs" was published unfinished only after his death in the first complete edition of his works (23 vols., Paris, 1798).

Condillac starts with Locke's empiricism, but Locke, he thinks, did not go deeply enough into the problem of the origin of human knowledge. According to Locke our knowledge has a two-fold source, sensation and reflection; according to Condillac, not only all our ideas, but even all our mental operations and faculties spring from sensation alone as their ultimate source; all are merely different stages or forms in the development of sensation (sensations transformées). He illustrates his theory by the hypothesis of a statue, which, inert at the beginning, is supposed to acquire, one by one, the senses, from the most elementary, smell, to the most perfect, touch. With this last sense and its impression of resistance, the stature which had been previously mere odour, taste, colour, etc., now acquires the distinction between the self and non-self. When it has all the senses, it has also the whole mental life. From sensation considered as representative spring all the faculties of the understanding. Attention is nothing but an exclusive sensation. When the object is present the impression is called actual sensation; the impression which remains after the disappearance of the object is called memory. Comparison is nothing more than a double attention; we cannot compare two objects or perceive two sensations without remarking that they are similar or dissimilar; to perceive similarities or differences is to judge; to reason is to draw a judgment from another judgment wherein it was contained. Moreover, all sensation is essentially affective, that is, painful or pleasant; under this aspect it is the source of all our active faculties. Need is the pain which results from the privation of an object whose presence is demanded by nature or habit; need directs all our energies towards this object; this very direction is what we call desire; desire as a dominant habit or passion; will is nothing but absolute desire, a desire made more energetic and more permanent through hope. What we call substance is simply the collection of sensations. What we call the ego is simply the collection of our sensations. Is there behind these sensations a something which supports them? We do not know. We express and summarize our sensations by means of words; we give the same name to all the individual object which we judge to be similar; this name is what we call a general idea. Through general ideas or names we bring order into our knowledge; and this is precisely the purpose of reasoning and it is what constitutes science. Good reasoning, therefore, consists essentially in speaking well. Ultimately the work of human thought is to pass from the confused and complex content of the primitive sensations to clear and simple concepts; the essential and the unique method is analysis based on the principle of identity, and the perfect analytical method is the mathematical method. To reason is to calculate; what we call progress in ideas is only progress in expression. A science is only a well-constructed language, une langue bien faite, that is, simple, with signs precisely determined according to the laws of analogy. The primitive form of language is the language of action which is innate in us, synthetical and confused. Under pressure of the need of communication between men, these actions are interpreted as signs, decomposed, analyzed, and the spoken language takes the place of the language of action.

Condillac's theory of education is based on the idea that the child in its development must repeat the various states through which the race has passed--an idea which, with certain modifications, still survives. Another of his principles, more widely received at present, is that the educative process must be shaped in accordance with natural development. He also insists on the necessity of establishing a connection between the various items of knowledge, and of training the judgment rather than burdening the memory. The study of history holds a large place in his system, and religion is of paramount importance. He insists that the prince, for whom the "Course d'études" was written shall be more thoroughly instructed in matters of religion than the subjects whom he is later to govern. On the other hand, Condillac has been justly criticized for his attempt to make the child a logician and psychologist, even a metaphysician, before he has mastered the elements of grammar--a mistake which is obviously due to his error concerning the origin of ideas. The system of Condillac ends, therefore, in sensualistic empiricism, nominalism, and agnosticism.

If Condillac's works evince a certain precision of thought and vigour of reasoning they clearly betray a lack of observation and of the sense of reality. Most of the time he is blinded by the tendency to reduce all processes of thought to a single method, all ideas and principles to a single source. This tendency is well exemplified in his hypothesis of the statue. He supposes it to be mere passivity; and by this very supposition, instead of a man he makes it a machine or, as Cousin says, a sensible corpse. He attempts to reduce everything to mere sensation or impression, and in reality every step in what he calls a transformation is made under the influence of an activity and a principle which dominate and interpret this sensation, but which Condillac confounds with it. It is the operation of this activity and principle essentially distinct from sensation, that enables him to speak of attention, comparison, judgment, and personality. An attempt has been made to show that Condillac was the forerunner, in psychology, ethics, and sociology of the English school represented by Mill, Bain, and Spencer (Dewaule, Condillac et la psychologie anglaise contemporaine, Paris, 1892); but this view seems to overlook the influence of Locke upon his successors in England and the traditional tendency of English philosophical thought (cf. Picavet in Revue philosophique, XXXIX, p. 215).

G. M. SAUVAGE

Condition

(Lat. conditio, from condo, to bring, or put, together; sometimes, on account of a somewhat similar derivative from condicere, confused with this) is that which is necessary or at least conducive to the actual operation of a cause, though in itself, with respect to the particular effect of which it is the condition, possessing in no sense the nature of causality. Thus the notion of a condition is not that of a real principle such as actually gives existence to the effect produced (which is the case in the notion of cause); but rather of a circumstance, or set of circumstances, in which the cause readily acts, or in which alone it can act. Thus a sufficient light is a condition of my writing, though it in no sense is, as I myself am, the cause of the act of writing. The writing is the effect of the writer, and not of the light by which it was performed. A condition is also to be distinguished from an occasion, which latter imports no more than an event, or thing, by reason of the presence of which any other event, or thing, takes place--as, for example, the passage of the king in state is the occasion of my removing my hat--while the action, or actual operation, of the cause is absolutely dependent upon the presence of this particular one, or of some condition. Condition is, for this reason, distinguished, with respect to the operation of any particular cause,

• as the condition sine quâ non, or condition without the presence of which this cause is wholly inoperative, and
• as the condition simply such--when some one of several possible ones is necessary to the actual operation of the cause.

To the former class belong such conditions as can be supplied by no others, such as, for example, that of the combustion of wood. A fire will not burn wood unless applied to it. The application of the fire to the wood is said to be a condition sine quâ non of the burning of the wood by the fire. A condition may further be considered in one of two different forms, either as preparing, disposing, or applying the causality of a cause towards its exercise in the production of an effect, or as removing some obstacle that hinders the action of the cause. This latter form of condition is sometimes known as the causa removens prohibens. The blinds of a room must be drawn up in order that the sunlight may enter and illuminate the objects in it. It is to be noted that this is really a condition, and not a cause, of the event considered. The illumination of the objects in the room is the effect of the sunlight entering it. This same distinction appears in the "necessary", or "sufficient" conditions, much employed in mathematical science. A sufficient condition is one in which, when the antecedent is present, it is always followed by the consequent. A necessary condition is one in which the consequent never exists unless this particular antecedent be given.

Some modern systems of Philosophy regard condition in the sense of what in the Scholastic view would be called accidental modification. Thus Kant upholds the assertion that time and space condition, or are the conditions of, our experience, as a priori forms. In this sense also, Hegel makes the conditioned entity equivalent to the finite entity; as it would indeed also be considered in Scholastic thought. That which has accidents, or is conditioned in the sense of limitations or definition, is necessarily, as contingent, in sharp distinction to the absolute. John Stuart Mill would have the framework, or complete setting in which anything exists accounted as its conditions; and all the necessary antecedents, or conditions, the cause of the thing. Thus it would be conditioned by its complex relationships--again an accidental modification in the Scholastic sense. We consequently find, in modern philosophical usage generally, and especially since Hamilton's theory of the Unconditioned was formulated, that the "conditioned" and the "unconditioned" are used as equivalents of the "necessary" and "contingent" of the Schoolmen, in the sense that the "necessary" entity is conceived of as absolute of all determination other than its own aseity, while all "contingent" entity is defined and limited by a composition in which one of the factors is potentiality. Hamilton's philosophy of the Unconditioned works out curiously in the department of ontology. His views were first given to the world in the form of an article in the Edinburgh Review (October, 1829), in which he criticized the philosophy of Cousin with regard to the knowledge of the Absolute. Victor Cousin maintained that we possess an immediate knowledge of the Unconditioned, Absolute, or Infinite in consciousness. According to Hamilton, the Unconditioned is either the unconditionally limited or the unconditionally unlimited. In either case the Unconditioned is unthinkable. For all human knowledge is relative, in that, "of existence, absolutely and in itself, we know nothing" (Met., Lect. viii). As a consequence of this doctrine of the relativity of knowledge, it follows that we are incapable of knowing that which is unconditioned by relativity. "The mind can conceive, and consequently can know only the limited, and the conditionally limited". "Conditional limitation", he says again (Logic, Lect. v) "is the fundamental law of the possibility of thought." Hence, while the Unconditioned may exist, we cannot know it by experience, intuition, or reasoning. Hamilton undertakes to explain his doctrine by the illustration of the whole and the part. It is impossible to conceive a whole to which addition may not be made, a part from which something may not be taken away. Hence the two extreme unconditionates are such, that neither can be conceived as possible, but one of them must be admitted as necessary. Of this, the Unconditioned, we have no notion either negative or positive. It is not an object of thought. From such considerations it follows that we cannot conclude either as to the existence or non-existence of the Absolute. On the other hand, while our knowledge is of the limited, related, and finite, our belief may go out to that which has none of these characteristics. Though we cannot know, we may believe--and, by reason of a supernatural revelation, if such be given, must believe--in the existence of the Unconditioned as above and beyond all that which is conceivable by us. Mill very carefully examines Hamilton's use of the word inconceivable, and finds that it is applied in three senses, in one of which all that is inexplicable, including the first principles, is held to be inconceivable. The same doctrine was advanced, in a slightly modified form, by Dean Mansel, in the Bampton Lecture of 1858. Whatever knowledge we are capable of acquiring of the Unconditioned is negative. As we can rationally, therefore, form no positive notion or concept of God, our reason must be helped and supplemented by our faith in revelation. Both Mansel's and Hamilton's expositions of the doctrine of relativity are in reality assertions of rational, or philosophical, agnosticism.

Thus, while professing to be theists, writers of this stamp are not properly to be accounted such in the strictly philosophical sense. The rational agnosticism that lies at the base of their theistic system, necessitating, as it does, an appeal to faith and revelation, vitiates it as a philosophy. The thesis advanced by them may, however, be criticized and amended in the following manner. It is true that the entire content of the Universe must be regarded, in comparison with its Creator, as limited or conditioned. It does not therefore follow that no rational inference can be drawn from the conditioned to the Absolute. On the contrary, the nerve of the theistic inference, tacitly, if not expressly, presupposed in all forms of the theistic argument, lies in the Thomistic distinction between the Necessary and the possible (or contingent). The existence of contingent beings, limited or conditioned things, postulates the existence of the Necessary Being, the one Unlimited and Unconditioned Thing. The argument in its developed form may be seen in the article THEISM. But it may be here pointed out that the inference from the contingent to the Necessary--necessitated, as it is, by the normal psychological action of the discursive reason--presupposes certain principles which are not always kept clearly in view. The Scholastic synthesis recognizes the reality of the contingent. It asserts that the human intelligence can rise above the phenomena of sense-perception to the actual substance that provides a basis and offers a rational explanation, at the same time psychological and ontological, of and for these. And it is in the changes and alterations of "substance" (see HYLOMORPHISM) that it perceives the essential contingency of all created things. From this perception it rises, by a strictly argumentative process, to the assertion of the Necessary or Unconditioned--and this with no appeal either to revelation or to faith. The knowledge of the Unconditioned thus reached is of two kinds: firstly, that the Unconditioned is, and that its existence is necessarily to be inferred from the existence of the possible or contingent (conditioned); secondly, that, as Unconditioned, or Necessary, the conceptions that we possess of it are to be found principally by the way of the negation of imperfections. Thus the Unconditioned, with regard to time, is Eternal; with regard to space, Unlimited, Infinite, Omnipresent; with regard to power, Omnipotent; and so on through the categories, removing the imperfections and asserting the plenitude of perfection. The argument may be found stated in the "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas (I:2:3) where it is given as the third way of knowing Utrum Deus sit.

FRANCIS AVELING

Thomas Conecte

Carmelite reformer, b. at Rennes towards the end of the fourteenth century; d. at Rome, 1433. He joined the Carmelites and distinguished himself by indiscreet zeal. He preached with much success at Cambrai, Tournai, Arras, etc., in his sermons vehemently denouncing the prevailing fashions in female headgear, with the result that those who dressed thus at his sermons despoiled themselves forthwith of their ornaments; gamblers also burned their playing cards and dices. Having inveighed against the disedifying life of certain priests, he had to seek safety in flight. He now strove to reform his own order, for which purpose he went to Italy, where with some others he introduced a strict observance in the convent near Florence, which gradually developed into the Congregation of Mantua. He visited this latter convent in 1432 and thence proceeded to Venice, and finally to Rome, where the manners of the Curia provoked anew his violent language and occasioned a charge of conspiracy against the pope. Apprehended at the instigation of the procurator and of Cardinal de la Roche-Taille, protector of the order, he was condemned as a heretic and publicly burned. It was said that Eugene IV was afterwards sorry for this sentence, which, if not unjust, was certainly too severe; but this does not justify certain Carmelite authors considering him a saint, as several whom Bale quotes have done.

Conecte is supposed to have written De Reformationequoedam Monita, alluded to by NICHOLAS KENTON; cf. ARGENTRÆUS, Histor. Britanniæ minoris, II, cap. xlii; DE S. ETIENNE, Bibliotheca Carmel., S.V.

B. ZIMMERMAN

Ecclesiastical Conferences

Ecclesiastical Conferences are meetings of clerics for the purpose of discussing, in general, matters pertaining to their state of life, and, in particular, questions of moral theology and liturgy.

HISTORICAL SKETCH

The origin of ecclesiastical conferences has been sought in the assemblies of hermits of the Egyptian deserts. As early as the third century, it was customary for these anchorites to meet together to discuss matters relating to asceticism and the eremitical life. When, later on, monasteries were instituted, somewhat similar conferences were held among the monks. There seems, however, to be little in common between these monastic assemblies and the pastoral collations, or conferences, of the present time. The more direct source of the latter are the quasi-synodal meetings of the clergy ordained by various decrees of the ninth century. such as those of Hincmar of Reims and Riculfus of Sion in Switzerland, and the Capitularies of Charlemagne. Such assemblies were looked upon as supplements of, or pendants to, the diocesan synods, and were intended principally for those of the clergy who found it difficult or impossible to assist at the regular synods. These clerics were ordered to meet at a convenient place, in their various districts, under the presidency of the dean or archdeacon, and their assemblies were called Calendœ, because held on the first of the month. Other terms applied to such meetings were consistories, sessions, and capitular conferences. We find them prescribed in England by the Council of Exeter in 1131 and the Council of London in 1237. In the sixteenth century ecclesiastical conferences received a new impulse. St. Ignatius Loyola prescribed them in his constitution (1540) for members of his order. Later, Clement VIII and Urban VIII commanded that all houses of the regular clergy have conferences twice a week on matters pertaining to moral theology and Holy Scripture. The main promoter of conferences among the secular clergy was St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, who treated of them specifically in a synod at Milan in 1565, when introducing the reforms decreed by the Council of Trent. Cardinal Borromeo ordered that the conferences be held monthly, and that they be presided over by the vicar forane or dean. Gradually the custom spread through the various ecclesiastical provinces; and at present these meetings are held in accordance with laws promulgated in plenary or provincial councils or synods. Many of the popes have strongly urged on the bishops of various countries the necessity and utility of the conferences, and Innocent XIII commanded that when bishops make their visit to Rome (ad limina) they should report, among other things. whether clergy conferences are held in their dioceses. There seems, howevcr, to be no general law of the Church which makes these ecclesiastical meetings obligatory.

DIOCESAN LAWS

The holding of conferences has been introduced among the clergy of all English-speaking countries, in virtue of ordinances promulgated at councils or synods. Thus the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) declares: "As an adjunct to diocesan synods and in lieu of their frequent celebration, let there be theological conferences of the priests, which will preserve the rudiments of the sacred science in the minds of all, promote a healthy and uniform method for the direction of souls, dispel mental inertia, and afford an opportunity for eliminating abuses. We greatly desire that these conferences he held four times a year by priests who can conveniently meet; and in the rural districts at least twice a year. All who have care of souls, whether seculars or regulars, should attend them" (No. 68). The Third Plenary Council (1884) treats in title v of the education of the clergy and devotes the fifth chapter to theological collations or conferences. It quotes the words of Pope Benedict XIV: "Some priests who are at first admirable directors of souls later lose their previous knowledge of moral theology, by neglect of study. so that from being masters of the science they can scarcely be called novices in it, since they retain only confused and imperfect recollections of its first rudiments." In consequence, the Fathers of Baltimore renew the decree of the previous plenary council as to the frequency of these conferences, and, after declaring them obligatory on all having care of souls, they add: "Nor can those confessors consider themselves exempt, who, although not attached to any certain church, hear the confessions of religious women in their convents or of laymen in public churches. those who frequently absent themselves without legitimate cause and the permission of the Ordinary should be punished." The Second Council of Quebec (1854) declares (Decr. 14): "Ecclesiastical conferences will promote zeal and love for study. Every one knows how useful they are for increasing mutual charity among priests and for instructing and confirming them in sacred doctrine. We desire all, especially those who have pastoral duties to assist at them faithfully according to the method and time prescribed by their bishops."

For Ireland the National Synod of Thurles (1850) ordained: "Since what the pastors have learnt as scholars can easily be forgotten, unless it be called to memory by use, we recommend that theological conferences be held according to custom, at least four times a year. In them such questions as pertain to practice should be especially treated." We find the following decree (No. 6) emanating from the First provincial Council of Australia (1844): "We ordain that theological conferences be held in every deanery, at least three times a year, where it can be done without great inconvenience." In 1852, the First Provincial Council of Westminster (Decr. 24) made the following rules for England: "We desire most earnestly that conferences on moral questions or on other theological or liturgical matters be held in all dioceses at certain stated times. According to locality, let the bishops determine, whether the whole clergy of the diocese should convene together under the bishop's presidency, or whether a number of conferences be held in different vicariates under the presidency of the vicars forane. The obligation to attend these conferences and take part in them is binding on all secular priests and on all regulars (saving their rights) having cure of souls." As to regulars, we have the following provision in the "Romanos Pontifices" of Leo XIII: "We declare that all rectors of missions, by reason of their office, must assist at the conferences of the clergy; and we also decree and command that there be present likewise the vicars and other regulars, having the usual missionary faculties, who reside in small communities." It will be noticed that the pope simply "declares" religious rectors to have an obligation to assist at the conferences, for this is in accordance with common law; but as he derogates from that law in prescribing that other regular missionaries who dwell in small communities should also attend, he uses the words decree and command. The pope gives the reason why he makes the distinction between regulars inhabiting large and small communities; the former have their own domestic conferences, the latter either do not have them at all, or they are not likely to be fruitful.

SUBJECT MATTER OF CONFERENCES

Among the questions to be answered by bishops at the visit ad limina is: "Are conferences held on moral theology or cases of conscience, and also on sacred rites? How often are they held, who attend them, and what results are obtained from them?" It is evident from this question that the main matters to be discussed are those pertaining to moral theology and liturgy. If these be given proper consideration, other subjects may also be considered, such as questions of dogmatic theology, canon law, Biblical science, and similar things. According to the prescriptions of St. Charles Borromeo, a case of conscience should be proposed at these meetings and each one present should, in turn, be asked his opinion. After this, the presiding officer makes a short summary and gives his decision. The Third Council of Baltimore wishes that questions be proposed by the bishops on matters of discipline and doctrine. Cases of conscience are to be solved in writing by all who attend: but only two, chosen by lot, are to read their solutions. Questions on Sacred Scripture, dogmatic theology, canon law, and sacred liturgy are to be answered by those who have been appointed for the purpose at the previous conference. The Provincial Council of Tuam, Ireland (1817), obliges all who cannot attend the meeting to send their solution of the cases in writing. The First Council of Quebec made a similar decree. The Council of Westminster requires that all who come should be prepared to respond to questions concerning the matters proposed. The Provincial Council of the English, Dutch, and Danish colonies (1854) prescribes that the dean send the solution of the cases either to the bishop or to some priest whom the latter shall designate. Among the decrees of the First Council of Westminster (No. 24) is the following: "The conferences are obliged to send to the bishop the solutions of the cases or the conclusions reached, to be examined and corrected by him. Each bishop in his own diocese is to determine the method to be observed and the matters to be considered in the conferences." Pius IX wrote as follows to the bishops of Austria in 1856: "Let conferences, especially concerning moral theology and sacred rites, be instituted by you, which all the priests should attend and bring in writing the explanation of a question proposed by you. They should also discuss, for such length of time as you may prescribe, matters connected with moral theology and ritual practice, after some one of the priests has delivered a discourse on the particular obligations of the sacerdotal order."

Acta et Decreta Conc. Recentior. Coll. Lacensis (Freiburg, 1875), III, s. v. Collationes; LUCIDI, De Visit. S. Liminum (Rome, 1899), I; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du droit Canon. (Paris, 1901), I; THOMASSIN, Vetus ac nova eccl. discipl., pt. II, bk. III, ch. lxxiv and lxxvi; SCHNEEMANN in Kirchenlex., s. v.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Confession

(Lat. confessio).

Originally used to designate the burial-place of a confessor or martyr (known also as a memoria or martyrion), this term gradually came to have a variety of applications: the altar erected over the grave; the underground cubiculum which contained the tomb; the high altar of the basilica erected over the confession; later on in the Middle Ages the basilica itself (Joan. Bar., De invent. s. Sabini); and finally the new resting-place to which the remains of a martyr had been transferred (Ruinart, II, 35). In case of translation the relics of a martyr were deposited in a crypt below the high altar, or in a hollow space beneath the altar, behind a transenna or pierced marble screen such as were used in the catacombs. Thus the tomb was left accessible to the faithful who wished to touch the shrine with cloths brandea) to be venerated in their turn as "relics". In the Roman church of St. Clemente the urn containing the remains of St. Clement and St. Ignatius of Antioch is visible behind such a transenna. Later still the term confession was adopted for the hollow reliquary in an altar (Ordo Rom. de dedic. altaris). The oil from the numerous lamps kept lighted in a confession was considered as a relic. Among the most famous subterranean confessions of Rome are those in the churches of S. Martino al Monti; S. Lorenzo fuori le Mure, containing the bodies of St. Laurence and St. Stephen; S. Prassede containing the bodies of the two sisters Sts. Praxedes and Pudentiana. The most celebrated confession is that of St. Peter. Over the tomb of the Apostle Pope St. Anacletus built a memoria, which Constantine when building his basilica replaced with the Confession of St. Peter. Behind the brass statues of Sts. Peter and Paul is the niche over the grated floor which covers the tomb. In this niche is the gold coffer, the work of Benvenuto Cellini which contains the palliums to be sent to archbishops de corpore b. Petri according to the Constitution "Rerum ecclesiasticarum" of Benedict XIV (12 Aug., 1748). All through the Middle Ages the palliums after being blessed were let down through the grating on to the tomb of the Apostle, where they remained for a whole night (Phillips, Kirchenrecht, V, 624, n. 61). During the restoration of the present basilica in 1594 the floor gave way, revealing the tomb of St. Peter and on it the golden cross weighing 150 pounds placed there by Constantine, and inscribed with his own and his mother's names.

F.M. RUDGE

Confessor

(1) Etymology and primitive meaning

The word confessor is derived from the Latin confiteri, to confess, to profess, but it is not found in writers of the classical period, having been first used by the Christians. With them it was a title of honour to designate those brave champions of the Faith who had confessed Christ publicly in time of persecution and had been punished with imprisonment, torture, exile, or labour in the mines, remaining faithful in their confession until the end of their lives. The title thus distinguished them from the martyrs, who were so called because they underwent death for the Faith. The first clear evidence of the distinction just spoken of is found in an epitaph which is recorded by De Rossi (Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1864, p. 30): "A Domino coronati sunt beati confessores comites martyrum Aurelius Diogenes confessor et Valeria Felicissima vivi in Deo fecerunt" [The blessed confessors, companions of the martyrs, have been crowned by the Lord. Aurelius Diogenes, confessor, and Valeria Felicissima, put up (this monument) during their lifetime]. Among writers St. Cyprian is the first in whose works it occurs (Ep. xxxxvii): "Is demum confessor illustris et verus est de quo post-modum non erubescit Ecclesia sed gloriatur" (That confessor, indeed, is illustrious and true for whom the Church does not afterwards blush, but of whom she boasts); he shows in the passage that suffering alone for the Faith did not merit the title of confessor unless perseverance to the end had followed. In this meaning the title is of more frequent occurrence in the Christian writers of the fourth century. Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmen, xvii), to quote one instance, writes, "Sed confessorem virtutum signa sequuntur" (But signs of power follow the confessor). A similar use may be verified in Lactantius, "De morte persecut.", xxxv; St. Jerome, Ep. Ixxxii, 7; Prudentius, Peri steph., 55, etc.

(2) Later meaning

After the middle of the fourth century we find confessor used to designate those men of remarkable virtue and knowledge who confessed the Faith of Christ before the world by the practice of the most heroic virtue, by their writings and preachings, and in consequence began to be objects of veneration, had chapels (martyria) erected in their honour, which in the previous centuries had been the especial privilege of the martyrs. In the Eastern Church the first confessors who received a public cultus were the abbots St. Anthony and St. Hilarion, also St. Philogonus and St. Athanasius. In the West Pope St. Silvester was so venerated even before St. Martin of Tours, as can be shown from the "Kalendarium" published by Fouteau--a document which is certainly of the time of Pope Liberius (cf. "Praenotata" in the aforesaid "Kalendarium", iv).

(3) Modern meaning

Since the time when the Roman pontiffs reserved to themselves definite decision in causes of canonization and beatification, the title of confessor (pontiff, non-pontiff, doctor) belongs only to those men who have distinguished themselves by heroic virtue which God has approved by miracles, and who have been solemnly adjudged this title by the Church and proposed by her to the faithful as objects of their veneration. (See MARTYRS; PERSECUTIONS; BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION. For the office of confessor in the Sacrament of Penance see PENANCE, SACRAMENT OF.)

CAMILLUS BECCARI

Confirmation

A sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.

It has been variously designated: bebaiosis or confirmatio, a making fast or sure; teleiosis or consummatio, a perfecting or completing, as expressing its relation to baptism. With reference to its effect it is the "Sacrament of the Holy Ghost", the "Sacrament of the Seal" (signaculum, sigillum, sphragis). From the external rite it is known as the "imposition of hands" (epithesis cheiron), or as "anointing with chrism" (unctio, chrismatio, chrisma, myron). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmatio, and for the Greek, to myron.

I. PRESENT PRACTICE AND DOCTRINE

Rite

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: "send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit the Holy Paraclete." He then anoints the forehead of each with chrism saying: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Finally. he gives each a slight blow on the cheek saying: "peace be with thee". A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop's blessing.

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: "the sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost." These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ, before all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrollment in the service of Christ which brings true peace to the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, III:72:4).

Minister

The bishop alone is the ordinary minister of confirmation. This is expressly declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Conf., C. iii). A bishop confirms validly even those who are not his own subjects; but to confirm licitly in another diocese he must secure the permission of the bishop of that diocese. Simple priests may be the extraordinary ministers of the sacrament under certain conditions. In such cases, however, the priest cannot wear pontifical vestments, and he is obliged to use chrism blessed by a Catholic bishop. In the Greek Church, confirmation is given by simple priests without special delegation, and their ministration is accepted by the Western Church as valid. They must, however, use chrism blessed by a patriarch.

Matter and Form

There has been much discussion among theologians as to what constitutes the essential matter of this sacrament. Some, e.g. Aureolus and Petavius, held that it consists in the imposition of hands. Others, with St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and Maldonatus, maintain that it is the anointing with chrism. According to a third opinion (Morinus, Tapper) either anointing or imposition of hands suffices. Finally, the most generally accepted view is that the anointing and the imposition of hands conjointly are the matter. The "imposition", however, is not that with which the rite begins but the laying on of hands which takes place in the act of anointing. As Peter the Lombard declares: Pontifex per impositionem manus confirmandos ungit in fronte (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, n. 1; cf. De Augustinis, "De re sacramentaria", 2d ed., Rome, 1889, I). The chrism employed must be a mixture of olive oil and balsam consecrated by a bishop. (For the manner of this consecration and for other details, historical and liturgical, see CHRISM.) The difference regarding the form of the sacrament, i.e. the words essential for confirmation, has been indicated above in the description of the rite. The validity of both the Latin and the Greek form is unquestionable. Additional details are given below in the historical outline.

Recipient

Confirmation can be conferred only on those who have already been baptized and have not yet been confirmed. As St. Thomas says:

Confirmation is to baptism what growth is to generation. Now it is clear that a man cannot advance to a perfect age unless he has first been born; in like manner, unless he has first been baptized he cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation (ST III:72:6).

They should also be in the state of grace; for the Holy Ghost is not given for the purpose of taking away sin but of conferring additional grace. This condition, however, refers only to lawful reception; the sacrament is validly received even by those in mortal sin. In the early ages of the Church, confirmation was part of the rite of initiation, and consequently was administered immediately after baptism. When, however, baptism came to be conferred by simple priests, the two ceremonies were separated in the Western Church. Further, when infant baptism became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, "for Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children, who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified." (Pt. II, ch. iii, 18.) Such, in fact, is the general usage in the Western Church. Under certain circumstances, however, as, for instance, danger of death, or when the opportunity of receiving the sacrament is but rarely offered, even younger children may be confirmed. In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as in earlier times, confirmed immediately after baptism. Leo XIII, writing 22 June, 1897, to the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of confirming children before their first communion as being more in accord with the ancient usage of the Church.

Effects

Confirmation imparts

• an increase of sanctifying grace which makes the recipient a "perfect Christian";
• a special sacramental grace consisting in the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost and notably in the strength and courage to confess boldly the name of Christ;
• an indelible character by reason of which the sacrament cannot be received again by the same person.

A further consequence is the spiritual relationship which the person confirming and the sponsor contract with the recipient and with the recipient's parents. This relationship constitutes a diriment impediment (see IMPEDIMENTS) to marriage. It does not arise between the minister of the sacrament and the sponsor nor between the sponsors themselves.

Necessity

Regarding the obligation of receiving the sacrament, it is admitted that confirmation is not necessary as an indispensable means of salvation (necessitate medii).

On the other hand, its reception is obligatory (necessitate præcepti) "for all those who are able to understand and fulfill the Commandments of God and of the Church. This is especially true of those who suffer persecution on account of their religion or are exposed to grievous temptations against faith or are in danger of death. The more serious the danger so much greater is the need of protecting oneself". (Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 250.) As to the gravity of the obligation, opinions differ, some theologians holding that an unconfirmed person would commit mortal sin if he refused the sacrament, others that the sin would be at most venial unless the refusal implied contempt for the sacrament. Apart, however, from such controversies the importance of confirmation as a means of grace is so obvious that no earnest Christian will neglect it, and in particular that Christian parents will not fail to see that their children are confirmed.

Sponsors

The Church prescribes under pain of grievous sin that a sponsor, or godparent, shall stand for the person confirmed. The sponsor should be at least fourteen years of age, of the same sex as the candidate, should have already received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and be well instructed in the Catholic Faith. From this office are excluded the father and mother of the candidate, members of a religious order (unless the candidate be a religious), public sinners, and those who are under public ban of interdict or excommunication. Except in case of necessity the baptismal godparent cannot serve as sponsor for the same person in confirmation. Where the opposite practice obtains, it should, according to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 Feb., 1884, be gradually done away with. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) declared that each candidate should have a sponsor, or that at least two godfathers should stand for the boys and two godmothers for the girls (n. 253). See also prescriptions of the First Council of Westminster. Formerly it was customary for the sponsor to place his or her right foot upon the foot of the candidate during the administration of the sacrament; the present usage is that the sponsor's right hand should be placed upon the right shoulder of the candidate. The Holy Office decreed, 16 June, 1884, that no sponsor could stand for more than two candidates except in case of necessity. The custom of giving a new name to the candidate is not obligatory; but it has the sanction of several synodal decrees during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Fifth Council of Milan, under St. Charles Borromeo, insisted that a candidate whose name was "vile, ridiculous, or quite unbecoming for a Christian" should receive another at Confirmation" (cf. Martène).

It is clear from the diversity of practice at the present day, that there is much uncertainty as to the doctrine concerning confirmation. It is certain that the sacrament is validly and lawfully administered in the Church; but this does not solve the theological questions regarding its institution, matter, form, and minister. At the time of the Council of Trent the difficulty was felt to be so great that the assembled Fathers contented themselves with only a few canons on the subject. They defined that confirmation was not "a vain ceremony but a true and proper sacrament"; and that it was not "in olden days nothing but a sort of catechism in which those who were entering upon youth gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church" (can. i). They did not define anything specific about the institution by Christ; though in treating of the sacraments in general they had already defined that "all the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord" (Sess. VII, can. i). Nothing whatever was said about the form of words to be used; and regarding the matter they merely condemned any one who should maintain "that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost" (can. ii). The third and last canon defined that the "ordinary" minister of the sacrament is a bishop only, and not any simple priest. This guarded language, so different from the definite canons on some of the other sacraments, shows that the council had no intention of deciding the questions at issue among theologians regarding the time and manner of the institution by Christ (direct or indirect institution), the matter (imposition of hands or anointing, or both), the form ("I sign thee", etc., or "the seal", etc.), and the minister (bishop or priest). Elsewhere (Sess. VII, can. ix) the council defined that in confirmation a character is imprinted in the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which the sacrament cannot be repeated; and again (Sess. XXIII) the council declared that "bishops are superior to priests; they administer the Sacrament of Confirmation; they ordain the ministers of the Church; and they can perform many other things over which functions others of an inferior rank have no power". Concerning the administration of the sacrament from the earliest times of the Church, the decree of the Inquisition (Lamentabili sane, 3 July, 1907) condemns the proposition (44): "There is no proof that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles; the formal distinction, therefore, between the two sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation, does not belong to the history of Christianity". The institution of the sacrament has also been the subject of much discussion as will appear from the following account.

II. HISTORY

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and ritual in the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the ceremony as at present performed, or a complete solution of the various theological questions which have since arisen. It is only from the Fathers and the Schoolmen that we can gather information on these heads.

(1) Confirmation in the Bible

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (viii, 14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost". Again (xix, 1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied". From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize. No distinct mention is made as to the origin of this rite; but Christ promised the gift of the Holy Ghost and conferred it. Again, no express mention is made of anointing with chrism; but we note that the idea of unction is commonly associated with the giving of the Holy Ghost. Christ (Luke, iv, 18) applies to Himself the words of Isaias (lxi, 1): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel". St. Peter (Acts, x, 38) speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost". St. John tells the faithful: "You have the unction (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things"; and again: "Let the unction [ chrisma], which you have received from him, abide in you" (I Ep., ii, 20, 27). A striking passage, which was made much use of by the Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of St. Paul: "He that confirmeth [ ho de bebaion] us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who also hath sealed [ sphragisamenos] us, and given us the pledge [ arrabona] of the Spirit in our hearts" (II Cor., i, 20, 21). No mention is made of any particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of the occasions on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may have been used: "Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost". Further, such expressions as "signing" and "sealing" may be taken as referring to the character impressed by the sacrament: "You were signed [ esphragisthete] with the holy Spirit of promise"; "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed [ esphragisthete] unto the day of redemption" (Eph., i, 13; iv, 30). See also the passage from II Cor. quoted above. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi, 1-4) the writer reproaches those whom he addresses for falling back into their primitive imperfect knowledge of Christian truth; "whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God" (Heb., v, 12). He exhorts them: "leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands", and speaks of them as those who have been "once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost". It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just as in Acts, ii, 38. The ceremony is considered to be so well known to the faithful that no further description is necessary. This account of the practice and teaching of the Apostles proves that the ceremony was no mere examination of those already baptized, no mere profession of faith or renewal of baptismal vows. Nor was it something specially conferred upon the Samaritans and Ephesians. What was done to them was an instance of what was generally bestowed. Nor was it a mere bestowal of charismata; the Holy Ghost sometimes produced extraordinary effects (speaking with divers tongues, etc.), but these were not necessarily the result of His being given. The practice and teaching of the Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the privileges of the episcopate. What further elements were handed down by tradition will be seen presently.

(2) Church Fathers

In passing from Holy Scripture to the Fathers we naturally expect to find more definite answers to the various questions regarding the sacrament. From both their practice and their teaching we learn that the Church made use of a rite distinct from baptism; that this consisted of imposition of hands, anointing, and accompanying words; that by this rite the Holy Ghost was conferred upon those already baptized, and a mark or seal impressed upon their souls; that, as a rule, in the West the minister was a bishop, whereas in the East he might be a simple priest. The Fathers considered that the rites of initiation (baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist) were instituted by Christ, but they did not enter into any minute discussion as to the time, place, and manner of the institution, at least of the second of these rites. In examining the testimonies of the Fathers we should note that the word confirmation is not used to designate this sacrament during the first four centuries; but we meet with various other terms and phrases which quite clearly refer to it. Thus, it is styled "imposition of hands" (manuum impositio, cheirothesia), "unction", "chrism", "sealing", etc. Before the time of Tertullian the Fathers do not make any explicit mention of confirmation as distinct from baptism. The fact that the two sacraments were conferred together may account for this silence. Tertullian (De Bapt., vi) is the first to distinguish clearly the three acts of initiation: "After having come out of the laver, we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction [ perungimur benedictâ unctione] according to the ancient rule . . . The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually . . . . Next to this, the hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit [ dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiriturn Sanctum]," Again (De resurr, carnis, n, 8): "The flesh is washed that the soul may be made stainless. The flesh is anointed [ungitur] that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed [signatur] that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit, The flesh is fed by the Body and Blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened of God." And (Adv, Marcion., i, n. 14): "But He [Christ], indeed even at the present time, neither rejected the water of the Creator with which He washes clean His own, nor the oil with which He anoints His own; . . . nor the bread with which He makes present [ repræsentat] His own very body, needing even in His own sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator," Tertullian also tells how the devil, imitating the rites of Christian initiation, sprinkles some and signs them as his soldiers on the forehead (signat illic in frontibus milites suos -- De Præscript., xl).

Another great African Father speaks with equal clearness of confirmation, "Two sacraments", says St, Cyprian, "preside over the perfect birth of a Christian, the one regenerating the man, which is baptism, the other communicating to him the Holy Spirit" (Epist, lxxii), "Anointed also must he be who is baptized, in order that having received the chrism, that is the unction, he may be anointed of God" (Epist, lxx), "It was not fitting that [the Samaritans] should be baptized again, but only what was wanting, that was done by Peter and John; that prayer being made for them and hands imposed, the Holy Ghost should be invoked and poured forth upon them. Which also is now done among us; so that they who are baptized in the Church are presented to the bishops [prelates] of the Church, and by our prayer and imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the seal [signaculo] of the Lord" (Epist, lxxiii), "Moreover, a person is not born by the imposition of hands, when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism; that being already born he may receive the Spirit, as was done in the first man Adam. For God first formed him and breathed into his face the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received except there is first one to receive it. But the birth of Christians is in baptism" (Epist, lxxiv). Pope St, Cornelius complains that Novatus, after having been baptized on his sickbed, "did not receive the other things which ought to be partaken of according to the rule of the Church--to be sealed, that is, by the bishop [ sphragisthenai ypo tou episkopou] and not having received this, how did he receive the Holy Ghost?" (Euseb., H.E., vi, xliii). In the fourth and fifth centuries the testimonies are naturally more frequent and clear. St. Hilary speaks of "the sacraments of baptism and of the Spirit"; and he says that "the favor and gift of the Holy Spirit were, when the work of the Law ceased, to be given by the imposition of hands and prayer" (In Matt., c. iv, c. xiv). St. Cyril of Jerusalem is the great Eastern authority on the subject, and his testimony is all the more important because he devoted several of his "Catecheses" to the instruction of catechumens in the three sacraments which they were to receive on being initiated into the Christian mysteries. Nothing could be clearer than his language: "To you also after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, was given the chrism [unction], the emblem of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost. . . This holy ointment is no longer plain ointment nor so as to say common, after the invocation, but Christ's gift; and by the presence of His Godhead, it causes in us the Holy Ghost, This symbolically anoints thy forehead, and thy other senses; and the body indeed is anointed with visible ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit . . . . To you not in figure but in truth, because ye were in truth anointed by the Spirit" (Cat. Myst., iii). And in the seventeenth catechesis on the Holy Ghost, speaks of the visit of Peter and John to communicate to the Samaritans the gift of the Holy Ghost by prayer and the imposition of hands. Forget not the Holy Ghost", he says to the catechumens, "at the moment of your enlightenment; He is ready to mark your soul with His seal [ sphragisai] . . . He will give you the heavenly and divine seal [ sphragisai] which makes the devils tremble; He will arm you for the fight; He will give you strength." Christ, says St, Optatus of Mileve, "went down into the water, not that there was what could be cleansed in God, but the water ought to go before the oil that was to supervene, in order to initiate and in order to fill up the mysteries of baptism; having been washed whilst He was held in John's hands, the order of the mystery is followed . . . . Heaven is opened whilst the Father anoints; the spiritual oil in the image of the Dove immediately descended and rested on His head, and poured on it oil, whence He took the name of Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father; to whom that the imposition of hands might not seem to have been wanting, the voice of God is heard from a cloud, saying, This is my Son, of whom I have thought well; hear ye him" (De schism, Donat., I, iv, n. 7).

St. Ephraem Syrus speaks of "the Sacraments of Chrism and Baptism" (Serm. xxvii); "oil also for a most sweet unguent, wherewith they who already have been initiated by baptism are sealed, and put on the armour of the Holy Spirit" (In Joel.) St. Ambrose addressing the catechumens who had already been baptized and anointed, says: "Thou hast received the spiritual seal, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding . . . . Keep what thou hast received. God the Father has sealed thee; Christ the Lord has confirmed thee; and the Spirit has given the pledge in thy heart, as thou hast learned from what is read in the Apostle" (De myst., c. vii, n. 42). The writer of the "De Sacramentis" (Inter Op. Ambros., lib. III, c. ii, n. 8) says that after the baptismal immersion "the spiritual seal [signaculum] follows . . . when at the invocation of the bishop [sacerdotis] the Holy Ghost is infused". The Council of Elvira decreed that those who had been baptized privately in case of necessity should afterwards be taken to the bishop "to be made perfect by the imposition of hands" (can. xxxviii, Labbe, I, 974). And the Council of Laodicea: "Those who have been converted from the heresies . . . are not to be received before they anathematize every heresy . . . and then after that, those who were called faithful among them, having learned the creeds of the faith, and having been anointed with the holy chrism, shall so communicate of the holy mystery" (can. vii). "Those who are enlightened must after baptism be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be partakers of the kingdom of Christ" (can. xlviii, Labbe, I, col. 1497). The Council of Constantinople (381): "We receive the Arians, and Macedonians . . . upon their giving in written statements and anathematizing every heresy . . . . Having first sealed them with the holy ointment upon the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and sealing them we say, ' The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost"' (can. vii, Labbe, II, col. 952). St. Augustine explains how the coming of the Holy Ghost was companied with the gift of tongues in the first ages of the Church. "These were miracles suited to the times . . . .

Is it now expected that they upon whom hands are laid, should speak with tongues? Or when we imposed our hand upon these children, did each of you wait to see whether they would speak with tongues? and when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so perverse of heart as to say 'These have not received the Holy Ghost?"' (In Ep, Joan., tr, vi), He also speaks in the same way about anointing: the sacrament of chrism "is in the genus of visible signs, sacrosanct like baptism" (Contra litt, Petil., II, cap, civ, in P. L., XLI, col. 342; see Serm, ccxxvii, Ad Infantes in P, L., XXXVII, col. 1100; De Trin., XV, n, 46 in P. L., XL, col. 1093); "Of Christ it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, not indeed with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which is signified by that visible unction wherewith the Church anoints the baptized". The most explicit passage is in the letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius: "As regards the sealing of infants, it is clear that it is not lawful for it to be done by anyone but a bishop [non ab aliis quam ab episcopo fieri licere]. For presbyters, though they be priests of the second rank (second priests), have not attained to the summit of the pontificate. That this pontificate is the right of bishops only--to wit: that they may seal or deliver the Spirit, the Paraclete is demonstrated not merely by ecclesiastical usage, but also by that portion of the Acts of the Apostles wherein it is declared that Peter and John were sent to give the Holy Ghost to those who had already been baptized. For when presbyters baptize, whether with or without the presence of the bishop, they may anoint the baptized with chrism, provided it be previously consecrated by a bishop, but not sign the forehead with that oil, which is a right reserved to bishops [episcopis] only, when they give the Spirit, the Paraclete. The words, however, I cannot name, for fear of seeming to betray rather than to reply to the point on which you have consulted me," Saint Leo in his fourth sermon on Christ's Nativity says to the faithful: "Having been regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost, you have received the chrism of salvation and the seal of eternal life" (chrisma salutis et signaculum vitae æternæ, -- P. L., LIV, col. 207), The Blessed Theodoret commenting on the first chapter of the Canticle of Canticles says: "Bring to thy recollection the holy rite of initiation, in which they who are perfected after the renunciation of the tyrant and the acknowledgment of the King, receive as a kind of royal seal the chrism of the spiritual unction (sphragida tina basiliken . . . tou pneumatikou myron to chrisma) as made partakers in that typical ointment of the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit" (P. G., LXXXI, 60).

Among the homilies formerly attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, but now admitted to be the work of some bishop of Southern Gaul in the fifth century, is a long homily for Whitsunday: "The Holy Ghost who comes down with a life-giving descent upon the waters of baptism, in the font bestows beauty unto innocence, in confirmation grants an increase unto grace. Because we have to walk during our whole life in the midst of invisible enemies and dangers, we are in baptism regenerated unto life, after baptism we are confirmed for the battle; in baptism we are cleansed, after baptism we are strengthened . . . . confirmation arms and furnishes weapons to those who are reserved for the wrestlings and contests of this world" (Bib. Max., SS. PP., VI, p. 649), These passages suffice to show the doctrine and practice of the Church during the patristic age,

(3) Early Middle Ages

After the great Trinitarian and Christological controversies had been decided, and the doctrine of Divine grace had been defined, the Church was able to devote attention to questions regarding the sacraments, the means of grace. At the same time, the sacramentaries were being drawn up, fixing the various rites in use, With precision of practice came greater precision and completeness of doctrine. "Chrisma", says St. Isidore of Seville, "is in Latin, called 'unctio' and from it Christ receives His name, and man is sanctified after the laver [lavacrum]; for as in baptism remission of sins is given, so by anointing [unctio] the sanctification of the Spirit is conferred. The imposition of hands takes place in order that the Holy Spirit, being called by the blessing, may be invited [per benedictionem advocatus invitetur Spiritus Sanctus]; for after the bodies have been cleansed and blessed, then does the Paraclete willingly come down from the Father" (Etym., VI, c.xix in P.L., LXXXII, col. 256). The great Anglo-Saxon lights of the early Middle Ages are equally explicit. "The confirmation of the newly baptized", says Lingard (Anglo-Saxon Church, I, p. 296), "was made an important part of the bishop's duty. We repeatedly read of journeys undertaken by St. Cuthbert chiefly with this object . . . . Children were brought to him for confirmation from the secluded parts of the country; and he ministered to those who had been recently born again in Christ the grace of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, 'placing his hand on the head of each, and anointing them with the chrism which he had blessed (manum imponens super caput singulorum, liniens unctione consecratâ quam benedixerat; Beda, "Vita Cuth.", c. xxix, xxxii in P.L., XCIV, Oper. Min., p. 277)." Alcuin also in his letter to Odwin describes how the neophyte, after the reception of baptism and the Eucharist, prepares to receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. "Last of all by the imposition of the hands by the chief priest [summo sacerdote] he receives the Spirit of the seven-fold grace to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to fight against others" (De bapt. cæremon. in P.L., CI, col. 614). It will be observed that in all these passages imposition of hands is mentioned; St. Isidore and St. Bede mention anointing also. These may be taken as typical examples; the best authorities of this age combine the two ceremonies. As to the form of words used the greatest variety prevailed. The words accompanying the imposition of hands were generally a prayer calling upon God to send down the Holy Ghost and confer upon the neophytes the seven gifts. In the Gregorian Sacramentary no words at all are assigned to the anointing; but it is clear that the anointing must be taken in connection with the words belonging to the imposition of hands. Where special words are assigned they sometimes resemble the Greek formulary (signum Christi in vitam æternam, etc.), or are indicative, like the present formula (signo, consigno, confirmo), or imperative (accipe signum, etc.), or deprecatory (confirmet vos Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, etc.). St. Isidore is clearly in favor of a prayer: "We can receive the Holy Ghost, but we cannot give Him: that He may be given, we call upon God" (De Off. Eccl., II, c. xxvi in P.L., LXXXIII, col. 823). In contrast with this diversity as to the form there is complete agreement that the sole minister is a bishop. Of course this refers only to the Western Church. The writers appeal to the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. St. Isidore, "De Off. Eccl.", II, c. xxvi; St. Bede, "In Act. Apost." in P.L., XCII, col. 961; "Vit. Cuth.", c. xxix); but they do not examine the reason why the power is reserved to the bishops, nor do they discuss the question of the time and mode of the institution of the sacrament.

(4) Scholastic Theology

The teaching of the Schoolmen shows a marked advance upon that of the early Middle Ages. The decision as to the number of the sacraments involved the clear distinction of confirmation from baptism; and at the same time the more exact definition of what constitutes a sacrament led to the discussion of the institution of confirmation, its matter and form, minister, and effects, especially the character impressed. We can follow the development through the labors of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm his successor, Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard (Sent., IV, dist. vii); then branching out into the two distinct schools of Dominicans (Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas) and Franciscans (Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus). As we shall see, the clearness with which the various questions were set forth by no means produced unanimity; rather it served to bring out the uncertainty with regard to them all. The writers start from the fact that there was in the Church a ceremony of anointing with chrism accompanied with the words: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross", etc.; this ceremony was performed by a bishop only, and could not be repeated. When they came to examine the doctrine underlying this practice they all admitted that it was a sacrament, though in the earlier writers the word sacrament had not yet acquired a distinct technical meaning. So strongly did they insist upon the principle Lex orandi, lex credendi, that they took for granted that the anointing must be the matter, and the words "I sign thee", etc., the form, and that no one but a bishop could be the valid minister. But when they came to justify this doctrine by the authority of Scripture they encountered the difficulty that no mention is made there either of the anointing or of the words; indeed nothing is said of the institution of the sacrament at all. What could be the meaning of this silence? How could it be explained?

(a) The institution of the sacrament

Regarding the institution there were three opinions. The Dominican School taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of confirmation. Earlier writers (e.g. Hugh of St. Victor, "De Sacram.", ii, and Peter Lombard," Sent.", IV, dist. vii) held that it was instituted by the Holy Ghost through the instrumentality of the Apostles. The Franciscans also maintained that the Holy Ghost was the author, but that He acted either through the Apostles or through the Church after the death of the Apostles. St. Thomas says,

Concerning the institution of this sacrament, there are two opinions: some say that it was instituted neither by Christ nor by His Apostles, but later on in the course of time at a certain council [Meaux, 845; this was the opinion of Alexander of Hales, Summ., iv, q. 9, m.], whereas others said that it was instituted by the Apostles. But this cannot be the case, because the institution of a sacrament belongs to the power of excellence which is proper to Christ alone. And therefore we must hold that Christ instituted this sacrament, not by showing it [ exhibendo] but by promising it, according to the text (John, xvi, 7), "If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." And this because in this sacrament the fullness of the Holy Ghost is given, which was not to be given before Christ's resurrection and ascension, according to the text (John, vii, 39), "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." ((ST III:72:1).

It will be noticed that the Angelic Doctor hesitates a little about the direct institution by Christ (non exhibendo, sed promittendo). In his earlier work (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1) he had said plainly that Christ had instituted the sacrament and had Himself administered it (Matt., xix). In this opinion the saint was still under the influence of his master, Albert, who went so far as to hold that Christ had specified the chrism and the words, "I sign thee", etc. (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, a. 2). The opinion of Alexander of Hales, referred to by St. Thomas, was as follows: the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost by mere imposition of hands; this rite, which was not properly a sacrament, was continued until the ninth century, when the Holy Ghost inspired the Fathers of the Council of Meaux in the choice of the matter and form, and endowed these with sacramental efficacy (Spiritu Sancto instigante et virtutem sanctificandi præstante), He was led to this extraordinary view (which he states as merely personal) by the fact that no mention is made in Holy Scripture either of the chrism or of the words; and as these were undoubtedly the matter and the form they could only have been introduced by Divine authority His disciple, St. Bonaventure, agreed in rejecting the institution by Christ or His Apostles, and in attributing it to the Holy Ghost; but he set back the time to the age of "the successors of the Apostles" (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, art. 1). However, like his friendly rival St. Thomas, he also modified his view in a later work viloquium, p. vi. c. 4) where he says that Christ instituted all the sacraments, though in different ways; "some by hinting at them and initiating them [ insinuando et initiando], as confirmation and extreme unction". Scotus seems to have felt the weight of the authority of the Dominican opinion, for he does not express himself clearly in favor of the views of his own order. He says that the rite was instituted by God (Jesus Christ? the Holy Ghost?); that it was instituted when Christ pronounced the words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost", or on the day of Pentecost, but this may refer not to the rite but to the thing signified, viz. the gift of the Holy Ghost (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1; dist. ii, q. 1). The Fathers of the Council of Trent, as said above, did not expressly decide the question, but as they defined that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Dominican teaching has prevailed. We shall see. however, that this is capable of many different meanings.

(b) The question of matter and form

The question of the institution of the sacrament is intimately bound up with the determination of the matter and form. All agreed that these consisted of the anointing (including the act of placing the hand upon the candidate) and the words, "I sign thee", or "I confirm thee", etc. Were this action and these words of Divine, or of Apostolic, or of merely ecclesiastical origin? St. Albertus held that both were ordained by Christ Himself; others that they were the work of the Church; but the common opinion was that they were of Apostolic origin. St. Thomas was of opinion that the Apostles actually made use of chrism and the words, Consigno te, etc., and that they did so by Christ's command. The silence of Scripture need not surprise us, he says, "for the Apostles observed many things in the administration of the sacraments which are not handed down by the Scriptures" (ST III:72:3).

(c) The reservation of the rite to the bishops

In proof of the reservation of the rite to bishops the Schoolmen appeal to the example of Acts, viii; and they go on to explain that as the sacrament is a sort of completion of baptism it is fitting that it should be conferred by "one who has the highest power [ summam potestatem] in the Church" (St. Thomas, III:72:11). They were aware, however, that in the primitive Church simple priests sometimes administered the sacrament. This they accounted for by the fewness of bishops, and they recognized that the validity of such administration (unlike the case of Holy orders) is a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. "The pope holds the fullness of power in the Church, whence he can confer upon certain of the inferior orders things which belong to the higher orders . . . . And out of the fullness of this power the blessed pope Gregory granted that simple priests conferred this sacrament" (St. Thomas, III:72:11).

(5) The Council of Trent

The Council of Trent did not decide the questions discussed by the Schoolmen. But the definition that "all the sacraments were instituted by Christ" (Sess. VII, can. i), excluded the opinion that the Holy Ghost was the author of confirmation. Still, nothing was said about the mode of institution--whether immediate or mediate, generic or specific. The post-Tridintine theologians have almost unanimously taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of all the sacraments, and so of confirmation (cf. De Lugo, "De Sacram. in Gen.", disp. vii, sect. 1; Tournely, "De Sacram. in Gen.", q. v, a. 1). "But the historical studies of the seventeenth century obliged authors to restrict the action of Christ in the institution of the sacraments to the determination of the spiritual effect, leaving the choice of the rite to the Apostles and the Church." (Pourrat, La théologie sacramentaire, p. 313.) That is to say, in the case of confirmation, Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power of giving the Holy Ghost, but He did not specify the ceremony by which this gift should be conferred; the Apostles and the Church, acting under Divine guidance, fixed upon the imposition of hands, the anointing, and the appropriate words. Further information on this important and difficult question will be found in the article SACRAMENTS.

III. CONFIRMATION IN THE BRITISH AND IRISH CHURCHES

In his famous "Confession" (p. clxxxiv) St. Patrick refers to himself as the first to administer confirmation in Ireland. The term here used (populi consummatio; cf. St. Cyprian, ut signaculo dominico consummentur, Ep. lxxiii, no. 9) is rendered by nocosmad, cosmait (confirmabat, confirmatio) in a very ancient Irish homily on St. Patrick found in the fourteenth century, "Leabar Breac". In the same work (II, 550-51) a Latin preface to an ancient Irish chronological tract says: Debemus scire quo tempore Patriacius sanctus episcopus atque præceptor maximus Scotorum inchoavit . . . sanctificare et consecrare . . . et consummare, i.e. "we ought to know at what time Patrick, the holy bishop and greatest teacher of the Irish, began to come to Ireland . . . to sanctify and ordain and confirm". From the same "Leabar Breac" Sylvester Malone quotes the following account of confirmation which exhibits an accurate belief on the part of the Irish Church: "Confirmation or chrism is the perfection of baptism, not that they are not distinct and different. Confirmation could not be given in the absence of baptism; nor do the effects of baptism depend on confirmation, nor are they lost till death. Just as the natural birth takes place at once so does the spiritual regeneration in like manner, but it finds, however, its perfection in confirmation" (Church History of Ireland, Dublin, 1880, I, p. 149). It is in the light of these venerable texts, which quite probably antedate the year 1000, that we must interpret the well-known reference of St. Bernard to the temporary disuse of confirmation in Ireland (Vita Malachiæ), c. iv, in Acta SS., Nov., 1I, 145). He relates that St. Malachy (b. about 1095) introduced the practices of the Holy Roman Church into all the churches of Ireland, and mentions especially "the most wholesome usage of confession, the sacrament of confirmation and the contract of marriage, all of which were either unknown or neglected". These Malachy restored (de novo instituit). The Welsh laws of Hywel Dda suppose for children of seven years and upwards a religious ceremony of laying on of hands that can hardly be anything else than confirmation. Moreover, the Welsh term for this sacrament, Bedydd Esgob, i.e. bishop's baptism, implies that it was always performed by a bishop and was a complement (consummatio) of baptism. Gerald Barry notes that the whole people of Wales were more eager than any other nation to obtain episcopal confirmation and the chrism by which the Spirit was given.

The practice in England has already been illustrated by facts from the life of St. Cuthbert. One of the oldest ordines, or prescriptions for administering the sacrament, is found in the Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766). The rite is practically the same as that used at present; the form, however, is: "receive the sign of the holy cross with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus unto life everlasting." Among the rubrics are: modo ligandi sunt, i.e. the head of the person confirmed is to be bound with a fillet; and modo communicandi sunt de sacrificio, i.e. they are to receive Holy Communion (Martène). It was especially during the thirteenth century that vigorous measures were taken to secure the proper administration of the sacrament. In general, the councils and synods direct the priests to admonish the people regarding the confirmation of their children. The age limit, however, varies considerably. Thus the Synod of Worcester (1240) decreed that parents who neglected to have their child confirmed within a year after birth should be forbidden to enter the church. The Synod of Exeter (1287) enacted that children should be confirmed within three years from birth, otherwise the parents were to fast on bread and water until they complied with the law. At the Synod of Durham (12177? Cf. Wilkins, Ioc. cit. below) the time was extended to the seventh year. Other statutes were: that no one should be admitted to Holy Communion who had not been confirmed (Council of Lambeth, 1281); that neither father nor mother nor stepparent should act as sponsor (London, 1200); that children to be confirmed must bring "fillets or bands of sufficient length and width", and that they must be brought to the church the third day after confirmation to have their foreheads washed by the priest out of reverence for the holy chrism (Oxford, 1222); that a male sponsor should stand for the boys and a female sponsor for the girls (Provincial Synod of Scotland, 1225); that adults must confess before being confirmed (Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury, about 1236). Several of the above-named synods emphasize the fact that confirmation produces spiritual cognation and that the sacrament cannot be received more than once. The legislation of the Synod of Exeter is especially full and detailed (see Wilkins, Concilia Magnæ Brittanniæ et Hiberniæ, London, 1734). Among the decrees issued in Ireland after the Reformation may be cited: no one other than a bishop should administer confirmation; the Holy See had not delegated this episcopal function to any one (Synod of Armagh, 1614); the faithful should be taught that confirmation cannot be reiterated and that its reception should be preceded by sacramental confession (Synod of Tuam, 1632).

IV. IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES

Previous to the establishment of the hierarchy, many Catholics in North America died without having received confirmation. In some portions of what is now the United States the sacrament was administered by bishops from the neighboring French and Spanish possessions; in others, by missionary priests with delegation from the Holy See. Bishop Cabezas de Altimirano of Santiago de Cuba, on his visitation of Florida, confirmed (25 March, 1606) a large number, probably the first administration of the sacrament in the United States territory. In 1655, Don Diego de Rebolledo, Governor of Florida, urged the King of Spain to ask the pope to make St. Augustine an episcopal see, or to make Florida a vicariate Apostolic so that there might be a local superior and that the faithful might receive the Sacrament of Confirmation; but nothing came of the petition. Bishop Calderon of Santiago visited Florida in 1647 and confirmed 13,152 persons, including Indians and whites. Other instances are the visitations of Bishop de Velasco (1735-6) and Bishop Morel (1763). Subsequently, Dr. Peter Camps, missionary Apostolic, received from Rome special faculties for confirmation. In New Mexico, during the seventeenth century, the custos of the Franciscans confirmed by delegation from Leo X and Adrian VI. In 1760, Bishop Tamaron of Durango visited the missions of New Mexico and confirmed 11,271 persons. Bishop Tejada of Guadalajara administered (1759) confirmation at San Fernando, now San Antonio, Texas, and Bishop de Pontbriand at Ft. Presentation (Ogdensburg, N.Y.) in 1752. The need of a bishop to administer the sacrament in Maryland and Pennsylvania was urged by Bishop Challoner in a report to the Propaganda, 2 Aug., 1763. Writing to his agent at Rome, Rev. Dr. Stonor, 12 Sept., 1766, he says: "there be so many thousands there that live and die without Confirmation"; and in another letter, 4 June, 1771: "It is a lamentable thing that such a multitude have to live and die always deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation." Cardinal Castelli wrote, 7 Sept., 1771, to Bishop Briand of Quebec asking him to supply the need of the Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania. In 1783 the clergy petitioned Rome for the appointment of a superior with the necessary faculties "that our faithful living in many dangers, may be no longer deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation . . . . " On 6 June, 1784, Pius VI appointed Rev. John Carroll as superior of the mission and empowered him to administer confirmation (Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, New York, 1888; cf. Hughes in Am. Eccl. Review, XXVIII, 23).

V. CONFIRMATION AMONG NON-CATHOLICS

The Protestant Reformers, influenced by their rejection of all that could not be clearly proved from Scripture and by their doctrine of justification by faith only, refused to admit that confirmation was a sacrament (Luther, De Capt. Babyl., VII, p. 501). According to the Confession of Augsburg, it was instituted by the Church, and it has not the promise of the grace of God. Melanchthon (Loci Comm., p. 48) taught that it was a vain ceremony, and was formerly nothing but a catechism in which those who were approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church; and that the minister was not a bishop only, but any priest whatsoever (Lib. Ref. ad Colonien.). These four points were condemned by the Council of Trent (supra I; cf. A. Theiner, Acta Genuina SS. OEcum. Conc. Trid., I, p. 383 sqq.). Nevertheless the Lutheran Churches retain some sort of confirmation to the present day. It consists of the examination of the candidate in Christian doctrine by the pastors or members of the consistory, and the renewal by the candidate of the profession of faith made for him at the time of his baptism by his godparents. How the pastors properly ordained can alone be said to "give" confirmation does not appear. The Anglican Church holds that "Confirmation is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel . . . for it has not the like nature of sacraments [ sacramentorum eandem rationem] with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" (Art. xxv). But, like the Lutheran Churches, it retains "the Confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in their articles of faith and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them" (Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, p. 300). The rite of confirmation has undergone various changes in the different prayer books (see BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER). From these it can be seen how the Anglican Church has varied between the complete rejection of the Catholic doctrine and practice, and a near approach to these. Testimonies could easily be quoted for either of these opinions. The wording of Art. xxv left a loophole which the Ritualistic party has made good use of. Even some Catholics, as stated above, have admitted that confirmation "has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God"; the imposition of hands, the anointing, and the words used being all of them "ordained of" the Apostles of the Church.

T.B. SCANNELL

Confiteor

The Confiteor (so called from the first word, confiteor, I confess) is a general confession of sins; it is used in the Roman Rite at the beginning of Mass and on various other occasions as a preparation for the reception of some grace.

HISTORY OF THE CONFITEOR

It is first heard of as the preparation for sacramental confession and as part of the preparation for Mass. Both the original Eastern liturgies begin with a confession of sin made by the celebrant (for the Antiochene Rite see Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, p.31, and for the Alexandrine Rite, ibid.,116). The first Roman sacramentaries and ordos tell us nothing about this preparation; they all describe the Mass as beginning at the Introit. The Confiteor in some form was probably from an early date one of the private prayers said by the celebrant in the sacristy before he began Mass. But the "Sixth Roman Ordo" (Mabillon, Museum Italicum, II, 70-76), written apparently in the tenth or eleventh century, tells us that at the beginning of Mass the pontiff "bowing down prays to God for forgiveness of his sins" (ibid., p.71). So by the eleventh century the preparation is already made at the altar. In the "Canonical Rule" of Chrodegang of Metz (d. 743) the questions put by the priest to the penitent before confession contain a form that suggests our Confiteor: "First of all prostrate yourself humbly in the sight of God . . . and pray Blessed Mary with the holy Apostles and Martyrs and Confessors to pray to the Lord for you (Chrodeg. Met., "Reg. Canon.", cap. xxxii, in P.L., LXXXIX, 1072). So also Egbert of York (d. 766) gives a short form that is the germ of our present prayer: "Say to him to whom you wish to confess your sins: through my fault that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed." In answer the confessor says almost exactly our Misereatur (Bona, "Rerum liturg.", Bk. II, ii, v). But it is in Micrologus (Bernold of Constance, d. 1100) that we first find the Confiteor quoted as part of the introduction of the Mass. The form here is: "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, istis Sanctis et omnibus Sanctis et tibi frater, quia peccavi in cogitatione, in lucutione, in opere, in pollutione mentis et corporis. Ideo precor te, ora pro me." The Misereatur and Indulgentiam follow, the former slightly different, but the latter exactly as we have it now (De eccl. observ., xxiii, in P.L., CLI, 992). In the "Ordo Romanus XIV" (by Cardinal James Cajetan in the fourteenth century, Mabillon, op. cit., II, 246-443) we find our Confiteor exactly, but for the slight modification: "Quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, delectatione, consensu, verbo et opere" (ib., p. 329). The Third Council of Ravenna (1314, Hardouin, Coll. Conc., VII, 1389) orders in its Rubric xv our Confiteor, word for word, to be used throughout that province. The form, and especially the list of saints invoked, varies considerably in the Middle Ages. Cardinal Bona (Rerum liturg. libri duo, II, 5-7) quotes a number of such forms. In many Missals it is shorter than ours: "Confiteor Deo, beatae Mariæ, omnibus sanctis et vobis" (so the Sarum Missal, ed. Dickinson Burntisland, 1861- 1883). In the Missal of Paul III (1534-1549) it is: "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, B. Mariæ semper Virgini, B. Petro et omnibus Sanctis et vobis Fratres, quia peccavi, meâ culpâ: precor vos orare pro me" (Bona, loc. cit.). Since the edition of Pius V (1566-1572) our present form is the only one to be used throughout the Roman Rite, with the exceptions of the Carthusian, Carmelite, and Dominican Offices, whose Missals, having been proved to have existed for more than 200 years, are still allowed. These three forms are quite short, and contain only one "meâ culpâ"; the Dominicans invoke, besides the Blessed Virgin, St. Dominic. Moreover, some other orders have the privilege of adding the name of their founder after that of St. Paul (the Franciscans for instance), and the local patron is inserted at the same place in a few local uses. Otherwise the Confiteor must always be said exactly as it is in the Roman Missal (S.R.C.,13 February, 1666, Benedict XIV, De SS. Missae Sacr., II, iii, 11,12).

USE OF THE CONFITEOR

The prayer is said sometimes as a double form of mutual confession, first by the celebrant to the people and then by the people to him, and sometimes only once, as a single form. As a double form it is used:

• as part of the introductory prayers of Mass said before the priest goes up to the altar, after the Psalm "Judica me" (Ritus celebrandi, III, 7-9);
• in the public recital of the Divine Office as part of the Preces at Prime (so that it is omitted on doubles and in octaves), and always in the beginning of Complin (Rubr. Gen. Brev., XV, 2, and XVIII, 1).

As a single form it occurs:

• during Mass, a second time, if anyone receives Holy Communion besides the celebrant;
• when Holy Communion is given outside of Mass (Rituale Rom., Tit. I, ch. ii, 1);
• before the administration of extreme unction (when it may be said in Latin or in the vulgar tongue. -- Rituale Rom., Tit. V, ch. ii, 6);
• before the Apostolic blessing is given to a dying person (ibid., Tit. V, ch. vi, 6);
• the Ritual further directs that penitents should begin their confession by saying the Confiteor either in Latin or in their own language, or at least begin with these words: "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti et tibi pater" (Tit. III, ch. i, 14);
• lastly the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" ordains that when a bishop sings high Mass, the deacon should sing the Confiteor after the sermon; the preacher then reads out the Indulgence given by the bishop, and the bishop adds a modified form of the Misereatur (in which he again invokes the saints named in the Confiteor), the Indulgentiam, and finally his blessing. This is the normal ceremony for the publication of Indulgences (Cær. Episc., I, ch. xxii, 4; II, ch. xxxix, 1-4).

RITE OF THE CONFITEOR

The form of words is too well known to need quotation. When it is used as a double form, the celebrant first makes his confession, using the words vobis fratres and vos fratres, the servers or ministers say the Misereatur in the singular (tui, peccatis tuis), and then make their confession addressed to the priest (tibi pater, te pater). He says the Misereatur in the plural (Misereatur vestri, etc.), and finally, making the sign of the cross, adds the short prayer Indulgentiam. Both the Misereatur and the Indulgentiam are answered with "Amen". When used as a single form the priest's confession is left out, the deacon, or server, says the Confiteor (tibi pater, etc.), the celebrant responds with the Misereatur and Indulgentiam. A person saying the prayer alone (for instance, in the private recital of the Divine Office says the Confietor leaving out the clauses tibi pater or vobis fratres, etc., altogether, and changes the answer to Misereatur nostri and peccatis nostris. Before Communion at high Mass and before the promulgation of Indulgences the Confiteor is sung by the deacon to the tone given in the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" (II, ch. xxxix, 1). The Misereatur and Indulgentiam are never sung. "Roman Missal, Breviary, Ritual Cæremoniale Episcoporum," loc. cit.; MABILLON, "Museum Italicum" (Paris, 1689) loc. cit.: BONA, "Rerum Liturgicarum Libri Duo" (Rome, 1671). Bk. II ch. ii, pp. 288-292; BENEDICT XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacrificio",. Bk. II, ch. iii, 4-11; GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer "(Freiburg im Br., 1897), II §34, pp. 326-334, tr. "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (St. Louis, 1902).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Confraternity (Sodality)

(Lat. confraternitas, confratria)

A confraternity or sodality is a voluntary association of the faithful, established and guided by competent ecclesiastical authority for the promotion of special works of Christian charity or piety. The name is sometimes applied to pious unions, but the latter differ from confraternities inasmuch as they need not be canonically erected and they regard rather the good of the neighbour than the personal sanctification of the members. Confraternities are divided into those properly so called and those to which the name has been extended. Both are erected by canonical authority, but the former have a more precise organization, with rights and duties regulated by ecclesiastical law, and their members often wear a peculiar costume and recite the Office in common. When a confraternity has received the authority to aggregate to itself sodalities erected in other localities and to communicate its advantages to them, it is called an archconfraternity.

Pious associations of laymen existed in very ancient times at Constantinople and Alexandria. In France, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the laws of the Carlovingians mention confraternities and guilds. But the first confraternity in the modern and proper sense of the word is said to have been founded at Paris by Bishop Odo who died in 1208. It was under the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Various other congregations, as of the Gonfalon, of the Holy Trinity, of the Scapular, etc., were founded between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. From the latter century onwards, these pious associations have multiplied greatly. Indulgences are communicated to confraternities either directly by the pope or through the bishops, unless the association be aggregated to an archconfraternity (it may not be aggregated to more than one) through which it participates in the latter's privilege. If the aggregation be not made according to the prescribed formula, the Indulgences are not communicated. The directors of confraternities are appointed or approved by the bishop, or in the churches of regulars by the regular superior. Only after such appointment can the director apply the Indulgences to the objects which he blesses, and he cannot subdelegate this power without special faculty. The reception of members must be carried out by the appointed person. The observance of the rules is not binding in conscience nor does their neglect deprive a person of membership, though in the latter case the Indulgences would not be obtained. The loss of all its members for a short time does not dissolve a confraternity, and by the reception of new members the Indulgences may again be gained. The dissolution, translation, and visitation of confraternities belong to the ordinary. The canon law governing these associations is found in the Constitution of Clement VIII (7 Dec., 1604) with some modification made later by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences.

LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici (Freiburg, 1903); BERINGER, Les Indulgences (Fr. tr., Paris, 1905): BOUIX, De Episcopo (Paris, 1889), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Confucianism

By Confucianism is meant the complex system of moral, social, political, and religious teaching built up by Confucius on the ancient Chinese traditions, and perpetuated as the State religion down to the present day. Confucianism aims at making not simply the man of virtue, but the man of learning and of good manners. The perfect man must combine the qualities of saint, scholar, and gentleman. Confucianism is a religion without positive revelation, with a minimum of dogmatic teaching, whose popular worship is centered in offerings to the dead, in which the notion of duty is extended beyond the sphere of morals proper so as to embrace almost every detail of daily life.

I. THE TEACHER, CONFUCIUS

The chief exponent of this remarkable religion was K'ung-tze, or K'ung-fu-tze, latinized by the early Jesuit missionaries into Confucius. Confucius was born in 551 B.C., in what was then the feudal state of Lu, now included in the modern province of Shan-tung. His parents, while not wealthy, belonged to the superior class. His father was a warrior, distinguished no less for his deeds of valour than for his noble ancestry. Confucius was a mere boy when his father died. From childhood he showed a great aptitude for study, and though, in order to support himself and his mother, he had to labour in his early years as a hired servant in a noble family, he managed to find time to pursue his favourite studies. He made such progress that at the age of twenty-two years he opened a school to which many were attracted by the fame of his learning. His ability and faithful service merited for him promotion to the office of minister of justice. Under his wise administration the State attained to a degree of prosperity and moral order that it had never seen before. But through the intrigues of rival states the Marquis of Lu was led to prefer ignoble pleasures to the preservation of good government. Confucius tried by sound advice to bring his liege lord back to the path of duty, but in vain. He thereupon resigned his high position at the cost of personal ease and comfort, and left the state. For thirteen years, accompanied by faithful disciples, he went about from one state to another, seeking a ruler who would give heed to his counsels. Many were the privations he suffered. More than once he ran imminent risk of being waylaid and killed by his enemies, but his courage and confidence in the providential character of his mission never deserted him. At last he returned to Lu, where he spent the last five years of his long life encouraging others to the study and practice of virtue, and edifying all by his noble example. He died in the year 478 B.C., in the seventy-fourth year of his age. His lifetime almost exactly coincided with that of Buddha, who died two years earlier at the age of eighty.

That Confucius possessed a noble, commanding personality, there can be little doubt. It is shown by his recorded traits of character, by his lofty moral teachings, by the high-minded men that he trained to continue his life-work. In their enthusiastic love and admiration, they declared him the greatest of men, the sage without flaw, the perfect man. That he himself did not make any pretension to possess virtue and wisdom in their fullness is shown by his own recorded sayings. He was conscious of his shortcomings, and this consciousness he made no attempt to keep concealed. But of his love of virtue and wisdom there can be no question. He is described in "Analects", VII, 18, as one "who in the eager pursuit of knowledge, forgot his food, and in the joy of attaining to it forgot his sorrow". Whatever in the traditional records of the past, whether history, lyric poems, or rites and ceremonies, was edifying and conducive to virtue, he sought out with untiring zeal and made known to his disciples. He was a man of affectionate nature, sympathetic, and most considerate towards others. He loved his worthy disciples dearly, and won in turn their undying devotion. He was modest and unaffected in his bearing, inclined to gravity, yet possessing a natural cheerfulness that rarely deserted him. Schooled to adversity from childhood, he learned to find contentment and serenity of mind even where ordinary comforts were lacking. He was very fond of vocal and instrumental music, and often sang, accompanying his voice with the lute. His sense of humour is revealed in a criticism he once made of some boisterous singing "Why use an ox-knife", he said, "to kill a fowl?"

Confucius is often held up as the type of the virtuous man without religion. His teachings, it is alleged, were chiefly ethical, in which one looks in vain for retribution in the next life as a sanction of right conduct. Now an acquaintance with the ancient religion of China and with Confucian texts reveals the emptiness of the assertion that Confucius was devoid of religious thought and feeling. He was religious after the manner of religious men of his age and land. In not appealing to rewards and punishments in the life to come, he was simply following the example of his illustrious Chinese predecessors, whose religious belief did not include this element of future retribution. The Chinese classics that were ancient even in the time of Confucius have nothing to say of hell, but have much to say of the rewards and punishments meted out in the present life by the all-seeing Heaven. There are numbers of texts that show plainly that he did not depart from the traditional belief in the supreme Heaven-god and subordinate spirits, in Divine providence and retribution, and in the conscious existence of souls after death. These religious convictions on his part found expression in many recorded acts of piety and worship.

II. THE CONFUCIAN TEXTS

As Confucianism in its broad sense embraces not only the immediate teaching of Confucius, but also the traditional records customs, and rites to which he gave the sanction of his approval, and which today rest largely upon his authority, there are reckoned among the Confucian texts several that even in his day were venerated as sacred heirlooms of the past. The texts are divided into two categories, known as the "King" (Classics), and the "Shuh" (Books). The texts of the "King", which stand first in importance, are commonly reckoned as five, but sometimes as six.

The first of these is the "Shao-king" (Book of History), a religious and moral work, tracing the hand of Providence in a series of great events of past history, and inculcating the lesson that the Heaven-god gives prosperity and length of days only to the virtuous ruler who has the true welfare of the people at heart. Its unity of composition may well bring its time of publication down to the sixth century B.C., though the sources on which the earlier chapters are based may be almost contemporaneous with the events related.

The second "King" is the so-called "She-king" (Book of Songs), often spoken of as the "Odes". Of its 305 short lyric poems some belong to the time of the Shang dynasty (1766-1123 B.C.), the remaining, and perhaps larger, part to the first five centuries of the dynasty of Chow, that is, down to about 600 B.C.

The third "King" is the so-called "Y-king" (Book of Changes), an enigmatic treatise on the art of divining with the stalks of a native plant, which after being thrown give different indications according as they conform to one or another of the sixty-four hexagrams made up of three broken and three unbroken lines. The short explanations which accompany them, in large measure arbitrary and fantastic, are assigned to the time of Wan and his illustrious son Wu, founders of the Chow dynasty (1122 B.C.). Since the time of Confucius, the work has been more than doubled by a series of appendixes, ten in number, of which eight are attributed to Confucius. Only a small portion of these, however, are probably authentic.

The fourth "King" is the "Li-ki" (Book of Rites). In its present form it dates from the second century of our era, being a compilation from a vast number of documents, most of which date from the earlier part of the Chow dynasty. It gives rules of conduct down to the minute details for religious acts of worship, court functions, social and family relations, dress--in short, for every sphere of human action. It remains today the authoritative guide of correct conduct for every cultivated Chinese. In the "Li-ki" are many of Confucius's reputed sayings and two long treatises composed by disciples, which may be said to reflect with substantial accuracy the sayings and teachings of the master. One of these is the treatise known as the "Chung-yung" (Doctrine of the Mean). It forms Book XXVIII of the "Li-ki", and is one of its most valuable treatises. It consists of a collection of sayings of Confucius characterizing the man of perfect virtue. The other treatise, forming Book XXXIX of the "Li-ki", is the so-called "Ta-hio" (Great Learning). It purports to be descriptions of the virtuous ruler by the disciple Tsang-tze, based on the teachings of the master. The fifth "King" is the short historical treatise known as the "Ch'un-ts'ew" (Spring and Autumn), said to have been written by the hand of Confucius himself. It consists of a connected series of bare annals of the state of Lu for the years 722-484 B.C. To these five "Kings" belongs a sixth, the so-called "Hiao-king" (Book of Filial Piety). The Chinese attribute its composition to Confucius, but in the opinion of critical scholars, it is the product of the school of his disciple, Tsang-tze.

Mention has just been made of the two treatises, the "Doctrine of the Mean" and the "Great Learning", embodied in the "Li-ki". In the eleventh century of our era, these two works were united with other Confucian texts, constituting what is known as the "Sze-shuh" (Four Books). First of these is the "Lun-yu" (Analects). It is a work in twenty short chapters, showing what manner of man Confucius was in his daily life, and recording many of his striking sayings on moral and historical topics. It seems to embody the authentic testimony of his disciples written by one of the next generation.

The second place in the "Shuh" is given to the "Book of Mencius". Mencius (Meng-tze), was not an immediate disciple of the master. He lived a century later. He acquired great fame as an exponent of Confucian teaching. His sayings, chiefly on moral topics, were treasured up by disciples, and published in his name. Third and fourth in order of the "Shuh" come the "Great Learning" and the "Doctrine of the Mean".

For our earliest knowledge of the contents of these Confucian texts, we are indebted to the painstaking researches of the Jesuit missionaries in China during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who, with an heroic zeal for the spread of Christ's kingdom united a diligence and proficiency in the study of Chinese customs, literature, and history that have laid succeeding scholars under lasting obligation. Among these we may mention Fathers Prémare, Régis, Lacharme, Gaubil, Noël, Ignacio da Costa, by whom most of the Confucian texts were translated and elucidated with great erudition. It was but natural that their pioneer studies in so difficult a field should be destined to give place to the more accurate and complete monuments of modern scholarship. But even here they have worthy representatives in such scholars as Father Zottoli and Henri Cordier, whose Chinese studies give evidence of vast erudition. The Confucian texts have been made available to English readers by Professor Legge. Besides his monumental work in seven volumes, entitled "The Chinese Classics" and his version of the "Ch'un ts'ew", he has given the revised translations of the "Shuh", "She", "Ta-hio", "Y", and "Li-Ki" in Volumes III, XVI, XXVII, and XXVIII of "The Sacred Books of the East".

III. THE DOCTRINE

A. Religious Groundwork

The religion of ancient China, to which Confucius gave his reverent adhesion was a form of nature-worship very closely approaching to monotheism. While numerous spirits associated with natural phenomena were recognized--spirits of mountains and rivers, of land and grain, of the four quarters of the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars--they were all subordinated to the supreme Heaven-god, T'ien (Heaven) also called Ti (Lord), or Shang-ti (Supreme Lord). All other spirits were but his ministers, acting in obedience to his will. T'ien was the upholder of the moral law, exercising a benign providence over men. Nothing done in secret could escape his all-seeing eye. His punishment for evil deeds took the form either of calamities and early death, or of misfortune laid up for the children of the evil-doer. In numerous passages of the "Shao-" and "She-king", we find this belief asserting itself as a motive to right conduct. That it was not ignored by Confucius himself is shown by his recorded saying, that "he who offends against Heaven has no one to whom he can pray". Another quasi-religious motive to the practice of virtue was the belief that the souls of the departed relatives were largely dependent for their happiness on the conduct of their living descendants. It was taught that children owed it as a duty to their dead parents to contribute to their glory and happiness by lives of virtue. To judge from the sayings of Confucius that have been preserved, he did not disregard these motives to right conduct, but he laid chief stress on the love of virtue for its own sake. The principles of morality and their concrete application to the varied relations of life were embodied in the sacred texts, which in turn represented the teachings of the great sages of the past raised up by Heaven to instruct mankind. These teachings were not inspired, nor were they revealed, yet they were infallible. The sages were born with wisdom meant by Heaven to enlighten the children of men. It was thus a wisdom that was providential, rather than supernatural. The notion of Divine positive revelation is absent from the Chinese texts. To follow the path of duty as laid down in the authoritative rules of conduct was within the reach of all men, provided that their nature, good at birth, was not hopelessly spoiled by vicious influences. Confucius held the traditional view that all men are born good. Of anything like original sin there is not a trace in his teaching. He seems to have failed to recognize even the existence of vicious hereditary tendencies. In his view, what spoiled men was bad environment, evil example, an inexcusable yielding to evil appetites that everyone by right use of his natural powers could and ought to control. Moral downfall caused by suggestions of evil spirits had no place in his system. Nor is there any notion of Divine grace to strengthen the will and enlighten the mind in the struggle with evil. There are one or two allusions to prayer, but nothing to show that daily prayer was recommended to the aspirant after perfection.

B. Helps to Virtue

In Confucianism the helps to the cultivation of virtue are natural and providential, nothing more. But in this development of moral perfection Confucius sought to enkindle in others the enthusiastic love of virtue that he felt himself. To make oneself as good as possible, this was with him the main business of life. Everything that was conducive to the practice of goodness was to be eagerly sought and made use of. To this end right knowledge was to be held indispensable. Like Socrates, Confucius taught that vice sprang from ignorance and that knowledge led unfailingly to virtue. The knowledge on which he insisted was not purely scientific learning, but an edifying acquaintance with the sacred texts and the rules of virtue and propriety. Another factor on which he laid great stress was the influence of good example. He loved to hold up to the admiration of his disciples the heroes and sages of the past, an acquaintance with whose noble deeds and sayings he sought to promote by insisting on the study of the ancient classics. Many of his recorded sayings are eulogies of these valiant men of virtue. Nor did he fail to recognize the value of good, high-minded companions. His motto was, to associate with the truly great and to make friends of the most virtuous. Besides association with the good, Confucius urged on his disciples the importance of always welcoming the fraternal correction of one's faults. Then, too, the daily examination of conscience was inculcated. As a further aid to the formation of a virtuous character, he valued highly a certain amount of self-discipline. He recognized the danger, especially in the young, of falling into habits of softness and love of ease. Hence he insisted on a virile indifference to effeminate comforts. In the art of music he also recognized a powerful aid to enkindle enthusiasm for the practice of virtue. He taught his pupils the "Odes" and other edifying songs, which they sang together to the accompaniment of lutes and harps. This together with the magnetism of his personal influence lent a strong emotional quality to his teaching.

C. Fundamental Virtues

As a foundation for the life of perfect goodness, Confucius insisted chiefly on the four virtues of sincerity, benevolence, filial piety, and propriety. Sincerity was with him a cardinal virtue. As used by him it meant more than a mere social relation. To be truthful and straightforward in speech, faithful to one's promises, conscientious in the discharge of one's duties to others--this was included in sincerity and something more. The sincere man in Confucius's eyes was the man whose conduct was always based on the love of virtue, and who in consequence sought to observe the rules of right conduct in his heart as well as in outward actions, when alone as well as in the presence of others. Benevolence, showing itself in a kindly regard for the welfare of others and in a readiness to help them in times of need, was also a fundamental element in Confucius's teaching. It was viewed as the characteristic trait of the good man. Mencius, the illustrious exponent of Confucianism, has the remarkable statement: "Benevolence is man" (VII, 16). In the sayings of Confucius we find the Golden Rule in its negative form enunciated several times. In "Analects", XV, 13, we read that when a disciple asked him for a guiding principle for all conduct, the master answered: "Is not mutual goodwill such a principle? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others". This is strikingly like the form of the Golden Rule found in the first chapter of the "Teaching of the Apostles"--"All things soever that you would not have done to yourself, do not do to another"; also in Tobias, iv, 16, where it appears for the first time in Sacred Scripture. He did not approve the principle held by Lao-tze that injury should be repaid with kindness. His motto was "Requite injury with justice, and kindness with kindness" (Analects, XIV, 36). He seems to have viewed the question from the practical and legal standpoint of social order. "To repay kindness with kindness", he says elsewhere, "acts as an encouragement to the people. To requite injury with injury acts as a warning" (Li-ki, XXIX, 11). The third fundamental virtue in the Confucian system is filial piety. In the "Hiao-king", Confucius is recorded as saying: "Filial piety is the root of all virtue."--"Of all the actions of man there are none greater than those of filial piety." To the Chinese then as now, filial piety prompted the son to love and respect his parents, contribute to their comfort, bring happiness and honour to their name, by honourable success in life. But at the same time it carried that devotion to a degree that was excessive and faulty. In consequence of the patriarchal system there prevailing, filial piety included the obligation of sons to live after marriage under the same roof with the father and to give him a childlike obedience as long as he lived. The will of the parents was declared to be supreme even to the extent that if the son's wife failed to please them he was obliged to divorce her, though it cut him to the heart. If a dutiful son found himself compelled to admonish a wayward father he was taught to give the correction with the utmost meekness; though the parent might beat him till the blood flowed he was not to show any resentment. The father did not forfeit his right to filial respect, no matter how great his wickedness. Another virtue of primary importance in the Confucian system is "propriety". It embraces the whole sphere of human conduct, prompting the superior man always to do the right thing in the right place. It finds expression in the so-called rules of ceremony, which are not confined to religious rites and rules of moral conduct, but extend to the bewildering mass of conventional customs and usages by which Chinese etiquette is regulated. They were distinguished even in Confucius's day by the three hundred greater, and the three thousand lesser, rules of ceremony, all of which had to be carefully learned as a guide to right conduct. The conventional usages as well as the rules of moral conduct brought with them the sense of obligation resting primarily on the authority of the sage-kings and in the last analysis on the will of Heaven. To neglect or deviate from them was equivalent to an act of impiety.

D. Rites

In the "Li-ki", the chief ceremonial observances are declared to be six: capping, marriage mourning rites, sacrifices, feasts, and interviews. It will be enough to treat briefly of the first four. They have persisted with little change down to the present day. Capping was a joyous ceremony, wherein the son was honoured on reaching his twentieth year. In the presence of relatives and invited guests, the father conferred on his son a special name and a square cornered cap as distinguishing marks of his mature manhood. It was accompanied with a feast. The marriage ceremony was of great importance. To marry with the view of having male children was a grave duty on the part of every son. This was necessary to keep up the patriarchal system and to provide for ancestral worship in after years. The rule as laid down in the "Li-ki" was, that a young man should marry at the age of thirty and a young woman at twenty. The proposal and acceptance pertained not to the young parties directly interested, but to their parents. The preliminary arrangements were made by a go between after it was ascertained by divination that the signs of the proposed union were auspicious. The parties could not be of the same surname, nor related within the fifth degree of kindred. On the day of the wedding the young groom in his best attire came to the house of the bride and led her out to his carriage, in which she rode to his father's home. There he received her, surrounded by the joyous guests. Cups improvised by cutting a melon in halves were filled with sweet spirits and handed to the bride and groom. By taking a sip from each, they signified that they were united in wedlock. The bride thus became a member of the family of her parents-in-law, subject, like her husband, to their authority. Monogamy was encouraged as the ideal condition, but the maintenance of secondary wives known as concubines was not forbidden. It was recommended when the true wife failed to bear male children and was too much loved to be divorced. There were seven causes justifying the repudiation of a wife besides infidelity, and one of these was the absence of male offspring. The mourning rites were likewise of supreme importance. Their exposition takes up the greater part of the "Li-ki". They were most elaborate, varying greatly in details and length of observance, according to the rank and relationship of the deceased. The mourning rites for the father were the most impressive of all. For the first three days, the son, clad in sackcloth of coarse white hemp, fasted, and leaped, and wailed. After the burial, for which there were minute prescriptions, the son had to wear the mourning sackcloth for twenty-seven months, emaciating his body with scanty food, and living in a rude hut erected for the purpose near the grave. In the "Analects", Confucius is said to have condemned with indignation the suggestion of a disciple that the period of the mourning rites might well be shortened to one year. Another class of rites of supreme importance were the sacrifices. They are repeatedly mentioned in the Confucian texts, where instructions are given for their proper celebration. From the Chinese notion of sacrifice the idea of propitiation through blood is entirely absent. It is nothing more than a food-offering expressing the reverent homage of the worshippers, a solemn feast to do honour to the spirit guests, who are invited and are thought to enjoy the entertainment. Meat and drink of great variety are provided. There is also vocal and instrumental music, and pantomimic dancing. The officiating ministers are not priests, but heads of families, the feudal lords, and above all, the king. There is no priesthood in Confucianism.

The worship of the people at large is practically confined to the so-called ancestor-worship. Some think it is hardly proper to call it worship, consisting as it does of feasts in honour of dead relatives. In the days of Confucius, as at present, there was in every family home, from the palace of the king himself down to the humble cabin of the peasant, a chamber or closet called the ancestral shrine, where wooden tablets were reverently kept, inscribed with the names of deceased parents, grandparents, and more remote ancestors. At stated intervals offerings of fruit, wine, and cooked meats were set before these tablets, which the ancestral spirits were fancied to make their temporary resting-place. There was, besides, a public honouring by each local clan of the common ancestors twice a year, in spring and autumn. This was an elaborate banquet with music and solemn dances, to which the dead ancestors were summoned, and in which they were believed to participate along with the living members of the clan. More elaborate and magnificent still were the great triennial and quinquennial feasts given by the king to his ghostly ancestors. This feasting of the dead by families and clans was restricted to such as were united with the living by ties of relationship. There were, however, a few public benefactors whose memory was revered by all the people and to whom offerings of food were made. Confucius himself came be to honoured after death, being regarded as the greatest of public benefactors. Even today in China this religious veneration of the master is faithfully maintained. In the Imperial College in Peking there is a shrine where the tablets of Confucius and his principal disciples are preserved. Twice a year, in spring and autumn, the emperor goes there in state and solemnly presents food-offerings with a prayerful address expressing his gratitude and devotion.

In the fourth book of the "Li-ki" reference is made to the sacrifices which the people were accustomed to offer to the "spirits of the ground", that is to the spirits presiding over the local fields. In the worship of spirits of higher rank, however, the people seem to have taken no active part. This was the concern of their highest representatives, the feudal lords and the king. Each feudal lord offered sacrifice for himself and his subjects to the subordinate spirits supposed to have especial care of his territory. It was the prerogative of the king alone to sacrifice to the spirits, both great and small, of the whole realm, particularly to Heaven and Earth. Several sacrifices of this kind were offered every year. The most important were those at the winter and summer solstice in which Heaven and Earth were respectively worshipped. To account for this anomaly we must bear in mind that sacrifice, as viewed by the Chinese, is a feast to the spirit guests, and that according to their notion of propriety the highest deities should be feted only by the highest representatives of the living. They saw a fitness in the custom that only the king, the Son of Heaven, should, in his own behalf and in behalf of his people, make solemn offering to Heaven. And so it is today. The sacrificial worship of Heaven and Earth is celebrated only by the emperor, with the assistance, indeed, of a small army of attendants, and with a magnificence of ceremonial that is astonishing to behold. To pray privately to Heaven and burn incense to him was a legitimate way for the individual to show his piety to the highest deity, and this is still practised, generally at the full moon.

E. Politics

Confucius knew but one form of government, the traditional monarchy of his native land. It was the extension of the patriarchal system to the entire nation. The king exercised an absolute authority over his subjects, as the father over his children. He ruled by right Divine. He was providentially set up by Heaven to enlighten the people by wise laws and to lead them to goodness by his example and authority. Hence his title, the "Son of Heaven". To merit this title he should reflect the virtue of Heaven. It was only the high-minded king that won Heaven's favour and was rewarded with prosperity. The unworthy king lost Divine assistance and came to naught. The Confucian texts abound in lessons and warnings on this subject of right government. The value of good example in the ruler is emphasized most strongly. The principle is asserted again and again, that the people cannot fail to practise virtue and to prosper when the ruler sets the high example of right conduct. On the other hand the implication is conveyed in more than one place that when crime and misery abound, the cause is to be sought in the unworthy king and his unprincipled ministers.

IV. HISTORY OF CONFUCIANISM

It is doubtless this uncompromising attitude of Confucianism towards vicious self-seeking rulers of the people that all but caused its extinction towards the end of the third century B.C. In the year 213 B.C., the subverter of the Chow dynasty, Shi Hwang-ti, promulgated the decree that all Confucian books, excepting the "Y-king", should be destroyed. The penalty of death was threatened against all scholars who should be found possessing the proscribed books or teaching them to others. Hundreds of Confucian scholars would not comply with the edict, and were buried alive. When the repeal came under the Han dynasty, in 191 B.C., the work of extermination was wellnigh complete. Gradually, however, copies more or less damaged were brought to light, and the Confucian texts were restored to their place of honour. Generations of scholars have devoted their best years to the elucidation of the "King" and "Shuh", with the result that an enormous literature has clustered around them. As the State religion of China, Confucianism has exercised a profound influence on the life of the nation. This influence has been little affected by the lower classes of Taoism and Buddhism, both of which, as popular cults, began to flourish in China towards the end of the first century of our era. In the gross idolatry of these cults the ignorant found a satisfaction for their religious cravings that was not afforded by the religion of the State. But in thus embracing Taoism and Buddhism they did not cease to be Confucianists. These cults were and are nothing more than accretions on the Confucian beliefs and customs of the lower classes, forms of popular devotion clinging like parasites to the ancestral religion. The educated Chinese despises both Buddhist and Taoist superstitions. But while nominally professing Confucianism pure and simple, not a few hold rationalistic views regarding the spirit world. In number the Confucianists amount to about three hundred millions.

V. CONFUCIANISM VERSUS CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION

In Confucianism there is much to admire. It has taught a noble conception of the supreme Heaven-god. It has inculcated a remarkably high standard of morality. It has prompted, as far as it knew how, the refining influence of literary education and of polite conduct. But it stands today encumbered with the serious defects that characterize the imperfect civilization of its early development. The association of T'ien with innumerable nature-spirits, spirits of sun, moon, and stars, of hills and fields and rivers, the superstitious use of divination by means of stalks and tortoise shells, and the crude notion that the higher spirits, together with the souls of the dead, are regaled by splendid banquets and food-offerings, cannot stand the test of intelligent modern criticism. Nor can a religion answer fully to the religious needs of the heart which withdraws from the active participation of the people the solemn worship of the deity, which has little use of prayer, which recognizes no such thing as grace, which has no definite teaching in regard to the future life. As a social system it has lifted the Chinese to an intermediate grade of culture, but has blocked for ages all further progress. In its rigid insistence on rites and customs that tend to perpetuate the patriarchal system with its attendant evils of polygamy and divorce, of excessive seclusion and repression of women, of an undue hampering of individual freedom, Confucianism stands in painful contrast with progressive Christian civilization.

CHARLES F. AIKEN

Congo

(CONGO INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONGO MISSIONS)

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following account of the Congo Independent State was written before the annexation of the State by the Belgian Government. Belgium's right to take over the Congo and the successive steps which have led up to the annexation will be found treated under sections II and VII. On 20 August, 1908, the Chamber of Deputies approved the treaty of annexation, and on 9 September following the treaty was adopted by the Belgian Senate. By this agreement the Belgian Government took over the Independent State, including the Domaine de la Couronne, with all its rights and obligations. Among other trusts the government guaranteed certain allowances to Prince Albert and Princess Clementine, and created two funds, one, $9,100,000 to be expended in Belgium for public works, and another of $10,000,000 to be paid to the king and his successors in fifteen annuities and used for objects connected with the Congo. The present article deals with the Independent State -- both in its interior organization and international position -- as it was down to the time of the annexation.]

I. EXPLORATION; FOUNDING OF THE STATE

America has not been without a share in the discovery of the Congo Free State. It was James Gordon Bennett, the proprietor of the "New York Herald", who (October, 1879) engaged (Sir) Henry Morton Stanley to undertake his voyage through Africa to find the lost explorer, David Livingstone. Americans, therefore, may a claim a part in the honour of a discovery which has changed our geographical notions and opened a new country to civilization. Congo had been considered an arid, uninhabited desert; Stanley found there rich forests, an immense river, vast lakes, and millions of human being to be civilized. Further, the United States was the first power (22 April, 1884) that recognized the flag of the International Association as that of a friendly state. There are (1908) in Africa four Congo states: the French German, Portuguese, and the Independent, or Free, State. It is this last which, more than the others, deserves particular attention. It was here that the plenipotentiaries, gathered at Berlin (24 Feb., 1885), hoped to see realized their ideal of generous freedom and civilizing humanity. Leopold II ascended the throne of Belgium in 1865. A man of undoubted genius and erudition, of large ideas and tenacious will, he was also inspired with great ambitions. Even before becoming king, in his speeches to the Senate (9 Apr., 1853; 7 Feb., 1860; 31 March, 1861) he expressed the desire to see his country rely on her own resources and extend her empire beyond the seas. Ascending to the throne, he found himself ruler of a country that was so small that it was scarcely visible on the map of the world, and it was only natural that he should conceive the hope of one day ruling a more extended dominion. He therefore set his heart on obtaining the Congo for his people; nor was this his first effort to realize his ambition; it was perhaps the seventh or eighth attempt he had made a Belgian colonization. Briefly, the successive stages of the foundation of the Congo Free State were as follows: As a consequence of the expeditions (1840; 1 May, 1873) of Livingstone and Stanley, public attention began to be drawn to Central Africa, and Leopold II divined the greatest possibilities of the newly-discovered country. On 12 Sept., 1876, he called a Conférence Géographique at Brussels, which gave birth to the association for the exploration and civilization of Central Africa commonly called the International African Association. This was divided into different national committees, each charged with the task of promoting the common cause. The Belgian committee was founded on 6 Nov., 1876; King Leopold assisted at its foundation and delivered a remarkable speech. The Belgian was the only committee which displayed any serious activity. It collected a sum of 100,000 dollars, five times as great as the united collections of all the others, and took the leading part in the organization of the first expedition. The expedition naturally followed the route which had already been traced by Livingstone, i. e., it moved from east to west. It was a failure, however, and many lives were sacrificed in vain. In January, 1878, the news came that Stanley had crossed right through Central Africa, from the Zanzibar Coast to the mouth of the Congo River, whose upper course he was the first to discover during the course of the journey. It was then that Leopold conceived an idea of sending out an expedition which should start from the western coast and explore the country. While others were content to applaud Stanley or to listen to his interesting narratives, the King of Belgium resolved to employ the explorer to further his designs, which were not merely commercial or political, but sincerely humanitarian as well. At the very moment Stanley set foot on European ground, envoys were waiting for him at Marseilles. The king succeeded in gaining him for his purpose, and then proceeded to found (Nov., 1878) a society afterwards called the International Congo Association. In the name of this association, in which Leopold was the principal through hidden agent, Stanley's little party, counting only thirteen white men, set out. It was not the only expedition intent on planting a European flag on this virgin soil; at the same time a French and a Portuguese mission were also on their way. Toward the end of 1879 Stanley reached a non-Portuguese territory on the right bank of the Congo River and founded there the post of Vivi. Moving slowly up the river he came at last to the Pool. The Brazza mission was already there, and the French flag was planted on the right bank. The French had not crossed the river, however, and the Portuguese expedition had stopped at the Upper Kwango, thus leaving the country to the interior open to the future colony. During this journey, Stanley concluded many treaties with the native chiefs, by which they were to submit to the suzerainty of the Association, founded a certain number of ports in the north toward the equator, and in the south in the Kassai district, and actually set up a government which was soon semi-officially recognized. In Oct., 1882, France tacitly acknowledged the capacity of the Association to enjoy international rights (see letter of M. Duclerc, president of the Council, to Leopold II). The United States (22 April, 1884) and Germany (8 Nov., of the same year) recognized in a more explicit manner the flag of the Association as that of a friendly State. A week later (15 Nov. 1884) the famous Berlin Conference was opened. The object of this conference, which included delegates from fourteen nations, is stated clearly in the heading which serves as preamble to the act containing the collection of decisions and called "l'Act Général de Berlin". It runs as follows: "Wishing to regulate, in a spirit of mutual good understanding, the conditions most favourable to the development of commerce and civilization in certain parts of Africa, and to assure to all nations the advantage of free navigation on the two principal African rivers [Congo and Niger] which flow into the Atlantic; desirous on the other hand of forestalling any misunderstandings or disputes which new acts of occupation on the African coast might cause in the future; concerned also with the measures to be taken for increasing the welfare both material and moral of the native races . . . " During the intervals between the meetings of the conference M. Strauch worked had to win for the flag of the International Association official recognition by all the powers represented; his efforts were successful, and Leopold, as founder of the association, was able to officially communicate the fact to the conference at its second last meeting (23 Feb., 1885). The plenipotentiaries then expressed their high appreciation of the work done by the king; at the same time they welcomed the birth of the new state, thus founded. At the final meeting of the conference, the Berlin Act was accepted by the Association, which was then hailed by Bismark as "one of the principal guardians of the work which they had in view". The moment had now arrived for Leopold to show himself. Hitherto he had worked through various societies which had finally developed into the International Association; he was the moving spirit of them all. He now came forward in the name of this Association, and receiving from the Belgian Chamber (vote of Chamber of Representatives, 28 April, 1885; vote of the Senate, 30 April, 1885) the necessary authorization he announced to the various powers on 1 August, 1885, and the days following, "that the possessions of the International Association would henceforth form and be called the Independent State of Congo". He further declared himself sovereign of this State. It was understood that the only constitutional bond of union between Belgium and the Independent State of Congo was the person of the king. Thus was founded the Independent State. Leopold can justly regard it as his own creation. Nevertheless it is only fair to recognize the part taken in the work by some Belgian statesmen. Without the recognition of the Powers the Independent Congo State could not have won a secure position, and this recognition was obtained through the brilliant diplomacy of Mr. E. Banning and of Baron Lambermont at Berlin. Without the authorization of the Belgian Chambers Leopold could not have occupied a new throne; it was M. Beernaert, then prime minister, who obtained this authorization, and he is therefore justly regarded as "one of the statesmen who have contributed most to unite the destinies of Congo and of Belgium" (Leroy-Beaulieu, "De la colonisation", 352).

II. INTERNATIONAL AND POLITICAL SITUATION

Recognition by the Powers

The international position held by the Independent State results directly from the friendly recognition of the powers accorded by treaty to the International Association, from which sprang the Independent State. Following, in chronological order, are the names of the contracting Powers and the dates of the treaties: United States of America (22 April, 1884); German Empire (8 Nov., 1884); Austria-Hungary (24 Dec., 1884); The Netherlands (27 Dec., 1884); Spain (7 Jan., 1885); France and Russia (5 Feb., 1885); Sweden and Norway (10 Feb., 1885); Portugal (14 Feb., 1885); Belgium and Denmark (28 Feb., 1885); Turkey (25 Jun., 1885); Switzerland, (19 Nov., 1885); Republic of Liberia (15 Dec., 1885); Japan (9 July., 1900).

Neutrality of the Congo

By the General Act of Berlin (ch. iii) the Powers has agreed to respect a political neutrality in the Congo Basin. They allowed all Powers having possessions there to put their territories under the power of this neutrality. Availing itself of this privilege, the Independent State, 1 Aug., 1885, declared its perpetual neutrality. This declaration was afterwards repeated, 19 Dec., 1894, on the occasion of certain changes of frontier.

Obligations Imposed by the Act of Berlin

In declaring its adhesion to the Act of Berlin (24 Feb., 1885), the Independent State contracted certain commercial, political, and other obligations which we shall briefly describe.

(a) Freedom of Commerce.-- All nations were to have perfect freedom in commercial enterprise; the subjects of all flags were to be treated with perfect equality and be at liberty to engage in all kinds of transport; there was to be freedom of traffic on all coasts, rivers, and lakes of the Congo, and the harbours were to be open; free transport and free transit were to be allowed to merchandise, save only such taxes or duties as might be required to defray the expense entailed in the interest of commerce (subsequently, by an agreement made at Brussels, 2 July, 1890, an import duty of ten percent maximum might be imposed); finally no monopoly or privilege or a commercial nature might be granted.

(b) Protection of Natives, Missionaries, Travellers.-- The powers signing the Act bound themselves to care for the native peoples, their moral and material welfare, and co-operate in suppressing slavery and especially the slave trade. They bound themselves to protect and assist, "without regard to distinctions of nationality or of creed, all religious, scientific, philanthropic establishments or enterprises, formed or organized for such ends, or calculated to instruct the inhabitants and make them understand and appreciate the advantages of civilization". In particular, Christian missionaries, men with scientific ends in view, and explorers, together with their escorts, were to be the objects of special protection (Article 6).

(c) Freedom of Religious Worship.-- "Liberty of conscience and religious toleration are expressly guaranteed to natives as well as to other subjects and to foreigners. The free and public exercise of all forms of worship, the right of erecting religious edifices, and of organizing missions belonging to all creeds shall not be submitted to any restriction or restraint" (ibidem).

(d) Postal Conventions.-- The terms of the Universal postal union, revised at Paris, 1 Jan., 1878 (Art. 7) were to be observed in the Congo Basin; there were officially accepted by the Independent State, 17 Sept., 1885. In like manner, 13 Sept., 1886, the additional Postal Act of Lisbon was adopted, on 19 June, 1892, the Universal Postal Convention of Washington, and on 26 May, 1906, that of Rome.

(e) Mediation and Arbitration.-- In case serious disagreements should occur over the territories where commercial freedom was allowed, the Powers signing the act bound themselves "before having recourse to arms, to seek the intervention of one or several friendly Powers". In such a case the Powers reserved to themselves the right of having recourse to arbitration (Art. 12).

Conditions of the Act of Brussels

The Slave Trade and Traffic in Spirits.-- On 2 July, 1890, on proposal of England, an international conference met at Brussels. A general act was proposed and signed by all the Powers that formerly had passed the Berlin Act, and also by the Independent State. By this the signatory Powers bound themselves to take measures to prevent the slave trade and to restrict the traffic in spirits in the zone lying between 20° N. lat. and 22° S. lat. Within this territory the distillation of liquor or importation thereof was forbidden in regions where the use of such liquor was not yet common. In the other parts where it was already in use a heavy import duty was imposed. This duty was fixed by the convention of 8 June, 1899, at seventy francs per hectolitre, fifty percent alcohol (about $1.57 a gallon), for a period of six years; an equivalent excise duty was laid on the manufacture of such liquors.

Right of Preference of France

Apart from the general provisions which govern its dealings with the Powers, the Independent State, owing to certain conventions, has special relations with France and Belgium. We shall treat first of those concerning France, comprised in the famous, but often badly explained, "Right of Preference". On 23 April, 1884, Colonel Strauch, President of the International Association, declared in a letter to Jules Ferry that if, owing to unseen circumstances and contrary to its intention, the Association was compelled in the future to sell its possessions, it would consider itself obliged to give preference of purchase to France. On the following day the French minister officially acknowledged the letter and added that in the name of the French government he bound himself to respect the established relations and the free territories of the Association. Thus the right was constituted. Writing, however, on 22 April, 1887, to Bourée, minister of France at Brussels, Baron von Eetvelde declared that the Association never meant or intended that this right accorded to France should be to the prejudice of Belgium of which Leopold II was king. In his letter of 29 April, Bourée replied that this interpretation had come to his notice, but said nothing more. When in 1895 the question of the cession of the Independent State to Belgium was raised, it seemed prudent to negotiate with France. As a consequence the convention of 5 Feb., 1895, was made between France and Belgium; France, on the one hand, agreed not to oppose the cession, and on the other secured a favourable determination of borders in Congo. On the same date, by another convention, the Belgian Government, already acting as a successor to the Independent State, recognized the right of preference of France to the purchase of these territories, in case of a complete or partial exchange, concession, or lease to another Power. It declared besides that it would never give up gratuitously either the whole or a part of these said possessions. It is quite clear, therefore, (1) that the right of preference is simply one of pre-emption, i. e., in case of alienation on terms of sale, negotiations must first be entered into with France; (2) that France recognized in 1895 the priority of Belgium in this respect, or at least consented not to deny Belgium the right of preference.

Belgium's Right to Take Over the Congo

The Belgian Act of 28 April, 1885, had declared: "the union between Belgium and the new state of Congo will be exclusively personal". This could not, however, prevent the subsequent gift on the part of the king, nor could it take from Belgium the right of accepting such a donation. By his will, dated 2 August, 1889, which was placed in the hands of M. Beernaert, who communicated it to the Chambers, Leopold II was to leave as a legacy to his country all sovereign rights over the Independent State of the Congo. He added, besides, that should the Belgian Government wish to take over the Congo before this time, he would be happy to see it accomplished during his lifetime. An agreement was next entered into, 3 July, 1890, by which Belgium was to advance to the Congo twenty-five million francs, five millions at once and the remaining twenty at the rate of two millions a year. Six months after the expiration of the ten years (18 Feb., 1901) Belgium might, if it wished, annex the Independent State, with all the possessions, rights, and emoluments belonging to this sovereignty, providing it assumed the outstanding obligations of the State to third parties, "the king expressly refusing all indemnification for the personal sacrifices he had made". On 5 Aug., 1894, the king-sovereign announced that he was prepared to put at the immediate disposal of Belgium his possessions in the Congo. Following this announcement a treaty of annexation was concluded, 8 Jan., 1895, between the Belgian government and the independent state, subject to the approval of the Chambers. This was given 12 Feb., 1895, but was withdrawn, 19 June, and the treaty annulled by mutual consent, 12 Sept., 1895. However, a new loan confirmed Belgium's option for 1901.

When this date arrived, Baron Van Eetvelde, minister of the State of Congo, addressed (28 March, 1901) a dispatch to the chief minister of the Belgian cabinet, Count de Smet de Naeyer, to the effect that possibly the moment had not yet arrived for Belgium to take over the Congo State; and that if this were so, in view of the letter of 5 August, 1889, and the existing ties between Belgium and the Congo, it would, perhaps, be neither politic nor useful to fix a new term for the right of option. A further communication, 22 May, 1901, emphasized the right held by Belgium, in virtue of the above-mentioned letter and the legacy of the king. It added that in case the right of annexation were unexercised, but not relinquished, Belgium ought to renounce, during such extension of her option, the payment of interest and the repayment of capital due to her. At the same time the Independent State declared its readiness to submit to annexation. M. Beernaert now proposed to annex the Congo, thus opposing the Government project of 28 March, 1901, namely, to suspend the repayment of the capital lent, and the payment of the interest. The king, by letter addressed 11 June, 1901, to M. Woeste, member of the Chamber, personally took part in the question. Only three items of this letter are public: the first clearly pointed out that the moment was inopportune for annexation; the second stated that in relation to the Congo Belgium should remain in the position she held in consequence of the Convention of 1890; the third enumerated the proofs of the attachment which the king had for his country. Thus came about the Belgian law of 14 Aug., 1901, which renounced the repayment of the loans and the interest thereon until such a time as Belgium should surrender the right of annexation -- a right which she declared she wished to preserve. From the examination of these acts it seems certain that Belgium has an incontestable right to take over the Congo during the lifetime of the king. That certain prominent politicians, in a preliminary discussion in 1906, seemed to have ignored this right, was doubtless only the effect of a surprise. When, however, as on 3 June, 1906, the king-sovereign in a letter to the secretaries-general of the Independent State, added to his will a codicil which seemed to impose on Belgium the obligation of respecting (besides the engagements entered into with third parties) certain royal foundations, the amendment was not acceptable to the Chambers. The minister then stated that these wishes on the part of the king were not imposed as conditions, but were only earnest recommendations. On 14 Dec., 1906, the house moved that while it desired for the Congo the advantages of civilization it was not unmindful of Belgium's rights; furthermore, that the question of taking over the Congo should be settled with the least possible delay.

The Territory

The declarations of neutrality, together with the friendly treaties by which the united Powers of Germany, France, Portugal, etc., recognized the State, determined roughly its frontiers. Greater precision resulted from the treaty with England of 12 May, 1894. With France, owing to some difficulties which arose, five treaties were made, the last being signed 25 May, 1894. Treaties still have to be made with Germany to settle the Lake Kivu question and with Portugal about the Lake Dilolo region. With the exception of a narrow border-zone to the east near Lake Albert Edward, situated in the Nile Basin, nearly all the territory in the State belongs to the Congo Basin, which is about 1,158,300 sq. m., which is equivalent to a square having a side of three hundred leagues, or to seventy-five times the area of Belgium, or five times that of France. It is bounded on the north and north-west by French Congo and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan; on the east by British East Africa (Uganda Protectorate) and German East Africa; on the south-east and south by Rhodesia and Portuguese Angola; and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean (which gives it about twenty-two miles of coastline) and the Portuguese territory of Cabinda. The State stretches from a little above 5° N. lat. to below 13° S. lat. and from 12° to between 31°-32° E. Long., the most easterly point being on the Upper Nile.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE

Physical Geography

The general aspect of the State has often been compared to a huge cup. To the west lie the Crystal Mountains; to the south-east, the long chain of the Mituba bordering on the plateaux of Ka-Tanga, from which descend the streams of Lualaba, Luapala, etc., whose waters unite to form the Congo River. This vast central depression, divided into several terraces, rests on alternate strata of granite and gneiss. Lacustral settings (grit and clayey schists) are often found, as well as laterite. The innumerable rivers of the Congo are rocky in their upper courses and cut their way by rapids from one terrace to another, until, on the great alleuvial plains of the centre, they form an immense network of from 9,000 to 11,000 miles of navigable water-ways and spread out fan-like from Leopoldville. The principle tributaries of the Congo are the Ubanghi and Welle to the north; the Kassai-Sankuru, Lomami, etc., to the south. Beyond Stanley Pool are the famous falls, which, by preventing continuous river-traffic necessitated the railroad (about 270 miles, a journey of two day), binding Leopoldville to the seaport of Matadi (the highest point of the Congo Estuary reached by streamers). The falls of the Upper River will likewise be doubled by railroads. In fact, a trunk line to Stanley Falls has been completed, and another, to the "Gates of Hell" commenced. Others in the direction of the Nile, of the Katanga, and of the English and Portuguese railways have been determined upon.

There are two seasons in the Lower Congo, the dry and the rainy. In the centre the climate, always warm and rainy, produced a vast equatorial forest of green trees and jungle. In these regions much cocoa, coffee, copal, nut- and palm-oil, and above all, caoutchouc are produced. Besides the elephant, hunted to excess, the fauna of the country include the antelope, monkey, zebra (which is hoped to domesticate), okapi, hippopotamus, and crocodile. There are also found termites, ants, mosquitoes, and the terrible tsé-tsé which causes the sleeping sickness. With regard to mineral wealth, Katanga gives promise of an immense amount of malachite copper (2 million tons, valued at $800,000,000, according to the official report of Jan., 1908), much tin (20 million tons, valued at $16,000,000 along the Lualaba): also iron magnitite and oligist. Gold also has been found in the mines of Kambobe, while those of Kilo (Aruwimi) produced 8841.25 oz. Troy ($170,000) in 1905.

Ethnography and Population

Three indigenous races are found in the Congo Basin. The Azandé, who seem to belong to the Nigritian races, inhabit the north-east frontier. The aboriginal pygmies are found in the centre, mingled with the rest, but especially in the region of the great forest. The larger part of the peoples belong to the Bantu family.The population is probably about 20 millions, although other estimates from twelve to thirty millions have been given.

Language

The language of the Blacks is, radically, the agglutinative speech of the Bantu peoples, i. e., it forms its words without fusion or alteration. It is divided into over forty very different dialects. The language is rich, rational, philosophic, and betokens a much higher level of civilization than do the morals and customs of this wretched race. In Lower Congo contact with the Portuguese has influenced the ideas and habits of the Blacks; it has taught them the commercial value of certain products, such as caoutchouc, and brought them under the enervating influence of alcohol; here the race has degenerated. In Upper Congo the Arab influence has introduced by violence both slavery and habits of industry. The pernicious practice of inhaling the fumes of hemp has come also with Arab domination. In the centre of the country the race remains more pure.

Political Organization

Present native customs show traces of a former supremacy of one chief over the others. There are unmistakable signs both of vassalage and of suzerainty. The tribes are ruled by a chief (mfumu), whose authority, however, is checked by the presence of a council of elders. The succession to the chieftaincy is hereditary, but not in the direct line of male descent. While only males can occupy the throne, the succession passes not to the son, but in the collateral line to the brother and then to the son of the daughter. Other information on ethnographic questions is given under VIII. MISSIONS IN THE CONGO.

Commerce

Some figures with regard to the commerce of the Congo may be given here. In 1887 when a total of the exportations of the Independent State was first made, the figure was about $396,088. This we may compare with the figures of subsequent years: -- 1890, $1,648,439; 1895, $2,188,603; 1900, $9,475,480; 1905, $10,000,432; 1906, $11,655,566. Caoutchouc represents the greater part of this output. Its value was, in 1905, $8,751,180 (19,938,975 lbs.). The value of ivory (472,260 lbs)for the same year was $967,554; palm nuts (11,355,529 lbs), $302,817; palm oil (4,335,229 lbs.), $220,678. Import statistics date only from the establishment of import duties in the second quarter of 1892. We append some dates and figures: -- 1893, $1,835,020; 1895, $2,137,169; 1900, $4,944,821; 1905, $4,015,072; 1906, $4,295,517. These figures represent largely Belgian commerce. In 1906 the Congo's exports to Belgium reached $10,860,939; the imports from Belgium were $3,057,058. Imports from the United States did not exceed $6000.

IV. WHEN AND BY WHAT RIGHT THE CONGO STATE WAS CREATED

How did the Congo State arise? The question is not an easy one to answer. Certain authors, the mouthpieces of the State, regard the Independent State as the natural heir of the petty chiefs who governed the various Congolese tribes. They maintain that through the treaties made with these chiefs the supreme power passed from native to European hands. This is a thesis easy to formulate, but impossible to defend. For in fact an international treaty supposes the existence of two nations. Now it may be admitted that the Congolese had, at the period in question, a political organization -- though this point has been doubted by some; at any rate the International Association was at the time surely nothing more than a private company. Again, when the native chiefs agreed to put their mark on the bottom of a treaty in exchange for a few pieces of cloth, did they realize what they were doing? Did they realize that they were veritably abdicating, and not simply authorizing some European to settle on their land? A recent defender of the position stated above has gone so far as to imagine that Stanley improvised on the Congo coast a course of international law for the use of the native chiefs. For this Stanley had neither time nor means at his disposal, and he would have found it difficult to do so through an interpreter. Further, even if the chiefs did wish to transfer their authority, could they have done so without the consent of their tribes? Lastly, the treaties in question were nearly all made with chiefs who inhabited the present French Congo; they affected only a very small part of the present Congo State.

Others say that the Independent State was created by the Berlin Conference. This hypothesis is also unacceptable. What right had this Conference over the Congo Basin? The plenipotentiaries claimed none; what they wished to do was not created new states, but to make the Powers, present and future, holding interests in central Africa, accept a regime of free trade. As a matter of fact it was during the intervals between the meetings of the Conference that the Independent State had its flag recognized by the different Powers one after another. The Conference, as such, only congratulated the State. It supplied the means of existence, but it did not create it. M. Cattier (Droit et administration de l'Etat Indépendant, p. 43) is rightly of the opinion that the Independent State owes its origin to an act of occupation. but was this lawful? Doubtless it was. First the land was a prey to the most revolting savage cruelties, even to cannibalism; second, it was ravaged by ceaseless intestine wars and by the slave trade; third, it denied strangers the protection of the jus gentium, or law of nations. In such a case the common good of mankind sanctioned the imposition of a state of order and security, and hence the creation of a civilizing power. The Powers represented at the Berlin Conference gave the king-sovereign a free hand in the political occupation of the Congo Basin, while the treaties made with the native chiefs and the victories won over the Arabs likewise contributed to this end. But it was only when this occupation grew sufficiently effective (about 1895) that the embryonic polity of 1885 became in a true sense the Independent State. It is carefully to be noted that the occupation above referred to did nothing more than transfer the political authority; it did not modify or affect any private rights, e. g., property rights.

V. INTERIOR ORGANIZATIONS

Legislative and Administrative Power

Leopold II exercises over his Congolese subjects a sovereignty which makes him the most absolute monarch in the world; he governs them by his sole and uncontrolled will. He gives all important orders, constitutes the whole administration, and is the source of all authority in his African kingdom. He has established the Congo Central Government at Brussels. While reserving himself the supreme legislative power, he has, since 1 Sept., 1894, confided to the secretary of state the direction of the Central Government. This official can enact measures (Arrêtés du Secrétaire d'Etat) which have the force of laws. When he is absent his place is taken by three secretaries-general, who, acting in concert, possess his power; as a matter of fact, since the period of office of Baron Van Eetvelde there has been no secretary of state. Further, the sovereign-king instituted (16 April, 1889) at Brussels a Conseil Supérieur, which acts as a high court of justice and gives advice on such questions as the king submits for consideration. His Majesty names the members of this council. In the Congo territory itself a governor-general is at the head of the administration. He possesses a restricted legislative power and can make police regulations and the like. The state capital is at Boma. The country is divided into fourteen districts, governed by the commissaires, and these are subdivided into zones and secteurs which are under the authority of the chefs de zone, chefs de secteur.

Judicial Power

For the administration of civil and criminal cases there are five lower courts, each composed of a judge, and officier du ministère public (procureur d'Etat) to represent the people, and a greffier; there is also a court of appeal composed of a president, two judges, an officier du ministère public (procureur général), and a greffier. In places where there is no regular court the officier du ministère public (who must be a doctor in law) can, within certain limits, exercise a summary jurisdiction. Finally, the native chiefs (mfumu) have certain judicial powers over their own peoples. The repression of crimes, or, in the terminology of Congo law, infractions, which include even such offenses as that of murder (see Code Pénal d l'Etat Indép.), is further confided to local courts, appointed by the governor-general and composed (at least normally) of a judge, who need not have have studied law (very often he is the commissaire), and an officier du ministère public (substitute) who must be a doctor in law. There are also military courts (conseil de guerre, conseil de guerre d'appel). At the head of this administration of justice is the conseil supérieur de Bruxelles, which constitutes the cour de cassation. The judges and officers of justice are not appointed for life, but are all removable; the governor-general possesses a sort of supremacy both in their nomination and supervision.

Domanial Policy

At first (1885-1891) the State favoured private initiative and claimed for itself no monopoly. Later on (since 1892), anxious to increase its resources, and hearing of the vast wealth of rubber and ivory in the Upper Congo, it inaugurated a regime of monopoly. Invoking an ordinance of 5 July, 1885, which had declared that "the unoccupied lands must be considered as belonging to the State", it invalidated all acts of occupation made, whether by natives or strangers, after this date. It then put in practice a system of proprietorship and exploitation of the soil and its products. We add here a short resumé of the extremely complex legislation now in force:

(a) Concerning the Natives. -- The decrees profess respect for all native occupation "such as it existed before 5 July, 1885". Hitherto no adequate or serious inquiry has determined the rights which the natives possessed in virtue of this occupation. Does the State admit that they now have a true proprietary right to any part whatever of the soil? It is impossible to say. At any rate, they may not, without authorization of the governor-general, dispose of their lands to a third party. The natives may continue, then, to inhabit their plots of land where they plant msnioc; in addition by virtue of the reform decrees of 1906 each village has been allotted an area triple the size of that which it previously inhabited and cultivated. The natives are full possessors of the products of the lands thus cultivated. Further, if they formerly enjoyed any certain use of any woods or forests they may still retain that use.

(b) Concerning the Non-Natives. -- The rights above-mentioned being safeguarded, all the rest of the Congo State has been declared property of the State; it is consequently at the absolute disposition of the sovereign-king, who has distributed it thus: (1) One-third constitutes the Domaine National, administered by a council of six charged with the task of developing its revenues. These revenues are intended to cover the ordinary budget expenses, to pay off the public debt, to form a reserve fund, and to serve certain purposes of public utility for the Congo State and for Belgium. (2) One-ninth, selected in the richest part of the country, forms the Domaine de la Courone. It is the private property of the king who, however, has the intention of giving it eventually to some institutions of public utility, and in the meantime desires that its revenues should create and subsidize certain works and institutions for the general good, whether in the State or in Belgium. Six mines, hereafter to be selected, also belong to the Domaine, which is administered by a committee. Hitherto both of these territories have been administered (en régie) by the employees of the State. (3) The rest of the territory constitutes the Terres Domaniales, which the state reserves to itself to sell, to let, or to grant as it pleases. All alienation or letting of these lands must, to avoid nullity, be ratified within six months by the king. Of these public lands about one third have been granted or alienated, principally to concessionary companies. The grants of use, however, far exceed the alienations, and they give to the companies in question the monopoly of exploitation. In the greater number of these companies the state owns half the stock.

Fiscal System

(1) The State subjects non-natives to direct and personal taxes similar to those in Europe. As a consequence of the Brussels Conference (2 July, 1890), a customs duty was laid on all imports. The exports custom duty on rubber (0.65 franc per kilogram -- about 6 cents per pound) and ivory (1 to 2.1 francs per kilogram -- about 9 cts to 17 cts per pound) forms one of the principal sources of revenue of the State.

(2) The natives are subject to conscription. Since the reforms of 1906 the annual contingent to be supplied is divided into two sections, one of which goes to the army and the other furnishes labourers for the public works. The soldiers serve for seven years, the workmen for five. Further, the natives who are not so engaged are subject to a poll tax affecting every adult, male or female. This tax varies from 6 to 24 fr. (about $1.20 to $4.80) a year; it may be paid in money, in kind (food-stuffs as a rule), or in personal labour. Every year the commissaire draws up for the different villages tables of equivalence between money, kind, and labour, which must, since the last reforms, be publicly exhibited. The personal labour demanded may not exceed in duration a total of forty hours a month -- hence the phrase "forty hours' tax". For this labour the natives receive a certain remuneration -- by "an act of pure condescension" according to the latest decrees. The annual income and outlay of the State are about $30,000,000 fr. (roughly $6,000,000. The products of the Domaine National together with taxes paid in kind represent 16,500,000 fr. The remuneration paid (in kind) to the natives amounts to 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 fr.

VI. CRITICISMS OF THE CONGO

For some years past the Independent State has been the object of very severe criticism, particularly on the part of the Congo Reform Association, directed by Mr. E. D. Morel. We do not presume to judge intentions; nevertheless, this hostility, directed against only one of the four Congos, and that one dependent on a people powerless to defend itself, creates in Belgium painful feelings of surprise. Grave accusations have been made against the French Congo; the German Parliament in the name of humanity has heard earnest protests against excesses in the German Congo; and it is not likely, if a commission were to traverse Rhodesia, that it would have nothing but eulogies to record. Why then single out one country, and that a defenseless one? It seems but fair, also, to remark that one cannot justly compare a colony in its beginnings with a colony established more than a century ago. The early history of the colonies has ever been a sad one, as is instanced by Macaulay's account of Warren Hastings and the British occupation of India. On the other hand wrong does not justify wrong. The standard of a government should be absolute justice, and it is from this point of view that the wrongs imputed to the Congo administration will be considered. The accusations fall under two heads: (1) infidelity to the promises given to the civilized Powers; (2) injustice toward the Congolese.

(1) Breach of Faith

The land system inaugurated in 1891 is said to be incompatible with the commercial freedom stipulated for at Berlin, in particular with Article 5, which forbade the granting of monopolies, and any privileges in commercial matters. The Independent State denies the charge of infidelity: "There is no 'commerce' in selling the product of one's own land. We do no more than that. The monopolies we accord are not commercial." In support of this view the opinions of jurists of different countries are adduced. These were consulted, especially in 1892, and included professor Westlake and Sir Horace Davy, the latter an English judge and member of the Privy Council.

(2) Inhuman Treatment of the Natives

This accusation appeals to Christian people; it touches the principles of humanity. The Congo State is accused of oppressing, instead of civilizing, the Congo, and charges of atrocious cruelty have been brought. So grave were these that King Leopold thought it wise to establish an International Commission of Inquiry with unlimited authority to investigate the condition of the natives. The decree of 23 July, 1904, entrusted this important duty to M. Janssens (General Advocate of the Court of Cassation of Belgium) as president of the commission, Baron Nisco, an Italian (Temporary President of the Boma Tribunal of Appeal), and Doctor de Schumacher (Counsellor of State and Chief of the Department of Justice of the Canton of Lucerne, Switzerland). The commission arrived at Boma, 5 October, 1904. They concluded their investigation 13 Feb., 1905, and on the 21st of the same month embarked for Europe. The report was made public, 5 Nov., 1905, in the official bulletin of the Independent State, and is obviously the most serious item in the question we are now discussing. We must except, however, the chapter dealing with the missionaries. In this the commission departed from their habitual prudence and their expressions here -- as is commonly stated -- do not accurately represent their judgment. According to this report one cannot directly charge the Independent State with responsibility for cruelties inflicted upon individuals. There are doubtless isolated crimes, but these are punished. There are also in involuntary consequences of governmental measures, but these unhappy effects were not foreseen. Such were the delegation of powers to the agents of companies; the giving of firearms to black sentinels; the failure to distinguish between military demonstrations to prevent rebellion and war operations to repress a revolt. Moreover the report drew attention to grave abuses in the recruiting of laborers, in the imposition of compulsory labour on the native, in the land regime, and in the organization of justice.

Following the publication of this, the king named a Reform Commission, whose work resulted in certain recommendations drawn up by the Secretaries-General of the State. These the king accepted and embodied in the Reform Decrees of 3 June, 1906.

It would be premature at this time to forecast the probable influence of these reforms on the general situation in the Congo; we are too near the events. Impartial history will distinguish the good from the evil, and fix the responsibilities. It may be said that the Report recognized, on the part of the Independent State, the splendid campaign against the Arabs, signalized by many deeds of heroism, which put an end to the slave trade, and rendered its resuscitation almost impossible. To the intestine wars between the chiefs have succeeded, almost everywhere, peace and security. The use of the flail and of alcohol have been rigorously prohibited, and the cannibal tribes can but very rarely find an opportunity of indulging their savage instincts. Finally it may be observed that in this whole affair Belgium is in no way responsible; this is an opinion expressed by two ministers of the British Government (see debates of the British Parliament for 27 Feb. and 3 March, 19808). Belgium as a whole has remained aloof from the African project, and the methods adopted were not known to it. If, indeed, the Congo Government had appealed with more simplicity and frankness to the religious sentiments of the Belgian people; if it had taken care to proclaim a programme of Christian civilization, it would have kindled more enthusiasm among them, and evoked more sympathy. In that case also it would have found more easily the men capable of contributing to a work of such supreme moral importance.

VII. FUTURE OF THE CONGO STATE

By a vote of 14 Dec., 1906, the Belgian Chamber of Representatives expressed its willingness to consider as soon as possible the question of annexation. A commission of eighteen was immediately charged with making a draft of proposed colonial law. When M. de Trooz succeeded M. de Smet de Naeyer as prime minister, he announced his intention of rapidly brining about the transfer of the Congo State to Belgium. During August, 1907, the Belgian and the Congo Governments each named four plenipotentiaries to draw up the treaty of annexation. A praiseworthy activity was displayed. The commission of eighteen adopted on first reading a tentative body of laws: the plenipotentiaries agreed to sign a treaty. The treaty however was not well received by the public; the Liberal Left unanimously declared they could not accept it. The principal difficulty, it seems, was the clause in the Treaty of Cession which assures the perpetuity of the Domaine de la Couronne. It is true that the revenues of this Domaine were to be disposed in a generous way; yet many representatives refused to bind the mother country to the maintenance of a foundation which had merely been earnestly recommended. In the meantime M. de Trooz died. M. Schollaert, his successor, pronounced in favour of annexation, and his declaration before the Chamber gave promise of more acceptable conditions of annexation. An additional clause introduced by his into the treaty greatly improved the situation.

VIII. MISSIONS IN THE CONGO

Ancient

The evangelization of the Congo began as early as 1484, when Diego Cam discovered the mouth of the Congo River, known as Zaire until the seventeenth century. Cam's naval chaplain set himself at once to preach the "good news" to the natives, and won to the Faith the chief of the Sogno, a village on the right bank of the Congo, where he first landed. Some of the inhabitants of this village accompanied Cam on his return voyage and were solemnly baptized at the court of John II of Portugal. Later, the head chief of the Banza-Congo (Outeiro, the present San Salvador) asked King John for missionaries. Three were sent (whether they were Dominicans or Franciscans or members of a Lisbon chapter we do not know); they finally baptized the head chief and many other subordinate ones at Banza-Congo, in a wooden structure called the Church of the Holy Cross. In 1518, a grandson of this chief, known as Henry, who had been ordained in Portugal, was made titular bishop of Utica, and appointed by Leo X Vicar Apostolic of Congo. Unfortunately, he died before quitting Europe. He is the only native bishop Congo has ever had.

From the beginning the Portuguese undertook to introduce Portuguese customs in Congo. The petty chiefs became kings with Portuguese names; their secretaries of state headed public documents thus: "We, Alphonso [or Diego] by the grace of God king of Congo and of Ilungo, of Cacongo, of Ngoyo, of the lands above and below the Zaire, Lord of the Amboados and of Angola . . . and of the Conquest [sic] of Parizon. . ." The chiefs for the most part could do no more than put their mark on these documents. One of them imitated the feudal system and divided his kingdom into seigniories, duchies, etc. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, a native chief, Alvarez II, sent one of his relatives, a marquis, as his representative to the papal court. The ambassador arrived in Rome in a dying condition, and expired the day after his arrival, the eve of the Epiphany, 1608. Paul V, who personally assisted the ambassador in his last moments, gave him a magnificent state funeral, and erected to his memory a monument at St. Mary Major's. Later, Urban VIII had a superb mausoleum erected to him by Bernini; it still stands at the entrance to the choir of the basilica. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Jesuits were the first missionaries of the Congo. In spite of the promising beginnings, their labours, though trying, were rather fruitless. In the seventeenth century, the Jesuits had two colleges, one at Loanda, another, of minor importance, at San Salvador. On the whole, religion never took firm root, and was early brought into discredit by the vices and the slave-trading of the Portuguese. It has managed, however, to linger on in Portuguese Congo to our days. While the Portuguese always confined themselves to the Lower Congo, as early as the seventeenth century the missionaries had traversed the course of the Zaire, and a seventeenth-century map has been discovered which traces the river according to data supplied by them. From this it would seem that Stanley has not the distinction of being the first white man to explore the Upper Congo.

Modern

French and Portuguese Congo On 20 May, 1716, Clement XI created the episcopal see of Santa Cruz do Reino de Angola. The residence was at first at San Salvador, but later on was transferred to Loanda. The Portuguese bishop of this town has under his jurisdiction about twenty priests. It is through this see that the ancient and modern missions of Congo are united (see ANGOLA). The first modern missionaries were the Fathers of the Holy Ghost (mother-house at Paris). Towards the middle of the nineteenth century this flourishing congregation of missionaries had the spiritual care of all the West African coast from the Senegal to the Orange River, with the exception of the Diocese of Loanda. They still have charge of all French Congo and of Portuguese Congo (Loanda excepted).

(1) French Congo.-- The Fathers of the Holy Ghost have here three vicariate:-- (a) Gabon, founded in 1842 and confided to them in 1845. Mgr. Adam is vicar Apostolic; 12 residences; mission staff, 42 priests, 21 brothers, 1 native priest, 7 native brothers and 41 catechists. (b) Loango River (Lower French Congo), founded, 24 Nov., 1886; pro-vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Dérouet; 6 residences; mission staff, 18 priests, 11 brothers, 1 native priest, 8 native seminarians, 17 native brothers, and 60 catechists. (c) Ubanghi (Upper French Congo), founded, 14 Oct., 1890; vicar Apostolic, is Mgr. Augouard; 7 residences; mission staff, 24 priests, 16 brothers, and 14 catechists. The Christians of these three vicariate number about 40,000, of whom more than half are catechumens.

(2) Portuguese Congo.-- This has a prefecture Apostolic dating from 26 June, 1640. The Capuchins administered it until 1834, when the mission was abandoned. A pontifical decree of 1 Sept., 1865, re-estabished it and entrusted it to the Fathers of the Holy ghost; 4 residences, 11 priests, 11 brothers, 12 native seminarists, 10 native brothers, and 24 catechists; Christians about 7,000. These figures represent the condition of the missions of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost in March, 1906.

(3) The Free State.-- Charles George Gordon, the hero of Khartoum, a Presbyterian, was among the first to draw the attention of Leopold II to the need of establishing numerous Catholic missions in his African kingdom. At the beginning of 1884, some days before his departure for the Sudan, Gordon was chosen General Administrator of the Stations of the International Association, and in this quality had an interview with Leopold, towards the end of which Gordon remarked: "Sire, we have forgotten the principle thing -- the missionaries." "Oh, I have already considered the question," said Leopold. "The Association gives help and protection to all missionaries; further, it has given a subsidy to the missionaries of the Bible Society, to the Baptists, . . ." "Yes," replied Gordon, "but you must also send Roman missionaries, many Roman missionaries" (Revue Générale, 1185, P. 116). From 24 Feb., 1878, there was at the extreme east of the Congo State a pro-vicariate Apostolic for the Upper Congo. This became, in 1880, a vicariate, and was served by the White Fathers of Cardinal Lavigerie (q. v.). But after the establishment of the new State in 1885, Leopold persuaded the Holy See to reserve the Catholic evangelization of his African dominion to Belgian missionaries. Cardinal Lavigerie did not, however, abandon this post of honour but founded a Belgian branch of his institute which, by pontifical Brief of 30 Dec., 1886, was placed in charge of the vicariate of the Upper Congo. Its activities are confined to the Independent State, vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Roelens. An African seminary was founded at Louvain (1886) and was placed under the direction of Canon Forget, professor of theology at the University of Louvain. The difficulties attached to such an enterprise soon made themselves felt, and it was found impossible to carry it on without the help of some religious institute. The aid of the young but already flourishing Congregation of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Mary (known as the Congregation of Scheutveld, after the mother-house at Scheutveld, near Brussels), had already been sought in 1876, and they were again appealed to in 1884. Though the mission in China and Mongolia absorbed nearly all their strength, they determined (1886-87) to assist the Congo. In 1888 they took over the African seminary and on 11 May of the same year Leo XIII created the immense vicariate Apostolic (present incumbent, Mgr. Van Ronslé) of the Belgian Congo, which he committed to their care. On 26 July, 1901, a part of this territory was detached, though still left in their charge, to form a new prefecture Apostolic of the Upper Kassai; pref. Ap. (1908) is Mgr. Henri Cambier.

Towards the end of 1891, the Belgian Jesuits, already overburdened with two foreign missions, undertook to send a body of missionaries to the Congo. They were placed in charge of a portion of the Belgian Congo vicariate; on 31 Jan., 1903, their mission became the prefecture Apostolic of Kwango. The superior and pref. Ap. (1908) is the Rev. Julian Banchaert, S. J. There are also a prefecture Apostolic: Welle, founded 12 May, 1898, Premonstratensians of the Abbey of Tongerloo (pref. Ap., Rev. M. I. Derikx), and a vicariate Apostolic: Stanley Falls, founded as a prefecture, 3 Aug., 1904, Priests of the Sacred Heart (vic. Ap. Rev. G. Grison). There are other missionaries in the Belgian vicariate who, although having no autonomous territory, nevertheless render very important service in the evangelization of the country. Among these are the Trappists and the Redemptorists. The former went from the Abbey of Westmalle in 1894, hoping to acquire in Africa, by the foundation of agricultural colonies, a civilizing influence similar to that of the medieval Benedictines. Their first efforts in the Lower Congo were fruitless; later they established themselves in the Upper Congo beyond the confluence of the Congo and the Ruki, almost on the Equator. Their principles post is at Bamania. The Redemptorists have succeeded the secular priests at Matadi in the evangelization of the town and of the railway employees. In 1905-06, the Mill Hill missionaries (English) accepted two posts in the Upper Congo. The Vicariate Apostolic at Sudan administered by the White Fathers, has under its jurisdiction a portion of the Congo State; vicar Apostolic Mgr. H. L. Bozin. In May, 1907, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost were engaged as chaplains to the second railway section of the Great Lakes.

The numerous sisters of various religious institutes who have devoted their fortunes and their lives to the moral education of the Congolese women do an amount of good beyond all praise. The Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary (Ghent Institute) were the first to enter on this arduous mission. They are found in the districts evangelized by the Fathers of Scheutveld and are assisted by the Franciscan Sisters from Gooreind, Antwerp province. The Missionary Sisters of the Precious Blood (Natal, Holland) are employed in the mission of the Trappist fathers. The Congregation of Our Lady of Africa (White Sisters) devote themselves to the natives in the Vicariate of Upper Congo. In the Prefecture of Kwango the Notre Dame Sisters (Namur) are established; in Welle, the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary (Berlaerlez-Lierre). For statistics see below the table of Catholic missions.

(4) German East Africa.-- The German possessions occupy but a very small part of the Congo Basin. There are three vicariates in charge of the White Fathers: South Nyanza under Mgr. J. J. Hirth; Unymuezi under Mgr. F. Gerboin; Tanganyika under Mgr. L. Le Chaptois. In addition, there is the vicariate of Central Zanzibar, in charge of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, under Mgr. F. X. Vogt. Finally, the Vicariate of South Zanzibar, or Dar es Salaam, in charge of the Bavarian Congregation of St. Odile, under Mgr. T. Spreiter.

Non-Catholic Missions.-- There are very few of these in the French Congo. We may mention the two missions of Ogowe, formerly held by the American Presbyterians, and now by the Paris Evangelical Missions. Quite recently a Swedish mission has been established in Loango. In Portuguese Congo, the Methodists have nine missions. Six missionary societies devote themselves to the evangelization of German East Africa, viz: the Evangelical Missionary Society for German East Africa, the Pagan Missionary Society, the Community of Brothers, and the Evangelical Missionary Society of Leipzig; and two English, viz.: the Universities Mission to Central Africa and the Church Missionary Society. In the Congo Independent State there are many Protestant Missions. The longest established is the English Baptist Missionary Society, Lower Congo (1877). In 1879 there followed the Livingstone Inland Mission; Lutheran Svenska or Swedish Mission (1883); Bishop Taylor's Self-Supporting Mission (1886); Congo Balolo Mission (1889); International Missionary Alliance (1889); American Southern Presbyterian Mission (1891); Arnot Scotch Presbyterian Mission (1891); Seventh Day Baptist (1893). In 1897 there were 56 stations with 221 mission workers of both sexes.

The Natives

The irreligion and ignorance of the Congolese have often been exaggerated and misrepresented. They are not so debased as many pretend. They recognize a supreme God, Creator of all things, but they seem very largely to ignore His immediate Providence and His interventions in the affairs of this world. They believe in the existence of spirits, and admit to a metempsychosis more or less happy in a future life. Their worship is a species of gross fetishism, propagated by the sorcerers, whose influence is very great and often most pernicious. These sorcerers are the "wise men" of the Congo; they are consulted about everything. If misfortune comes or crime is committed, it is to them that recourse must be had, and whoever is designated by them as the cause of the evil must pass through the test of fire or of casque (poison drink). The State forbids such tests under most severe penalties. Superstitious fears and slavish attachments to amulets are the chief obstacles to conversion. Others are the practice of polygamy, largely due to the custom which prevents the wife from having any relations with her husband during the period of lactation -- from two to three years -- lest she should make her child unhappy; the cannibalism which exists in certain parts; ingrained habits of idleness; gross egoism; the worship of might as confounded with right -- in short that sum of differences which separates, as by an abyss, the essentially pagan soul of the Congolese from the Christian conception of right and wrong which the missioners try to impart. The excesses and the evil example of the Europeans themselves render the missionary's even more difficult. Add to this the abuse which, in the district where the rubber trade flourishes, or in the neighbourhood of towns, imposes a hard task of from fifteen to twenty days per month of forced labour instead of the forty hours fixed by the law; the unfortunate division between the Christian churches and the acts of petty opposition consequent thereon -- and the problem is still further complicated. Nor is all ended when the Congolese is converted; he must be continually urged to hold fast to the gift he has received, for his fickleness is very great. Often he imagines that his obligation to remain a Christian ceases with the contract which binds him to a mission or to the service of Europeans. In the eastern part of Upper Congo the Arabs, who frequently make slave raids, have managed to win over to their religion many of the intelligent tribes of the Bakusus. These proselytes regard all their workmen as slaves for life; they are immoral, fanatic, and very hostile to the Gospel.

The noble work of evangelization in the Congo, however, is far from being fruitless. As formerly under the Portuguese rule, so today the missionaries find souls in which their teaching takes firm root. Mgr. Augougard gives the example of a catechist of the tribe of Babois who, seeing the resources of the mission failing, undertook to feed and clothe the children of his school with the profits of his sewing-machine. The most intelligent part of the population inhabits the Domaine de la Couronne and is well disposed toward Christianity. Until 1908 these people were shut off from all immediate missionary influence; they were evangelized, however, by some of their countrymen who had become Christians while serving in the army. Many travelled long distances to see and speak with Catholic missionaries, and both men and women, nothing daunted, undertook perilous journeys in order to reach the missionary stations. It is not surprising therefore that the missionaries have been received everywhere with enthusiasm, and that the natives have offered to build their simple habitations and schools.

The Manner of Evangelizing

Guided by experience, the present missionaries confer baptism only on those who have been well-instructed and well-tested. Their chief reliance is placed on the education of the young. Hence in the stations they have founded schools where religion is taught along with the trades. For the Catholics it is the religious, both men and women, who have devoted themselves to this work; among the Protestants, Mrs. Bentley deserves the highest praise for the intelligent direction she has given to the trade instruction. The fermes-chapelles, of which mention is often made, are rural schools where, under the guidance of certain picked pupils, the young Congolese are taught agriculture. The missionary who regularly visits these posts supplies the farm implements and the seeds; the chief who grants the use of his plot of ground still retains his title to the property; while the pupils, who form a sort of community around a little chapel, have the usufruct. A wise law of the State places at the disposal of charitable and philanthropic institutions the orphans and abandoned children, who are very numerous in the Congo. Hitherto the Catholics (with the exception of one Protestant mission) have been the only missioners to claim them. The catechists render very valuable service to the missionaries; they are always selected from among the cleverest and best trained of the young native Christians. The sleeping-sickness has given rise to several hospitals, or lazarettes, conducted by the missionaries. Both Protestant and Catholic missions have established printing presses; that of the Catholics is at Kisantu. To facilitate transportation the Protestants have four steamers, and the Catholics two. In respect to the relations between the missions and the civil power we may cite the convention concluded May, 1906, between the Holy See and the State. The latter agreed to grant certain lands to the missions, in return for which it stipulated for the opening and maintenance of schools and religious services in the principle centres. Both agreed to maintain harmony between their respective subjects, and to regulate amicably all differences. In 1907 the White Fathers possessed a school for catechists with 73 pupils, a petit séminaire with 14 pupils, and a grand séminaire with one pupil. The resources of the Catholic missionaries are mostly derived from private charity. Many Protestant missions are every richly endowed.

I-VII. -- FOR THE HISTORY OF THE CONGO BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE. -- PIGAFETTA, Le Congo, La véridique description du royaume Africain, from the Latin ed. of 1598 (Brussels, 1883); CAVAZZI, Historische Beschreibung der in dem unternoccidentalischen Mohrenland legende drei Konigreichen Congo, Mataba und Angola und der jetzigen Apostolichen Missionen, So von denen PP. Capucinen, daselbst verzichtet wurden (München, 1694); MILNE EDWARDS, Investigacões geographicas das portuguezes (Lisbon, 1879); STANLEY, Through the Dark Continent (1879); Idem, The Congo: Its Past History, Present Development, and Future Commercial Prospects (1884); Idem, England and the Congo and Manchester Trade, and the Works and Aims of the International Association (Manchester, 1884); Idem, Cinq années au Congo (Fr. tr. GERARD, Brussels, 1886); de SANTOS e SILVA, Esbaco historico da Congo e Loanau nos tempos modernos. Contenda uma resenha das costumes e vocabulario dos indigenos Cabinda (Lisbon, 1888); WERNER, A Visit to Stanley's Rear-Guard at Major Bartley's camp on the Aruhwini, with an Account of River Life on the Congo (London, 1889); LIVINGSTONE, Missionary Travels and Researchers in South Africa, including a Sketch of Sixteen Years Residence in the Interior of Africa (London); HORE, Tanganyka, Eleven Years in Central Africa (London, 1892); JUNKER, Travels in Africa, tr. by Keene (London, 1890, 1892); Glave, Six Years of Adventure in Congoland, preface by STANLEY (London, 1893); STANLEY, In Darkest Africa (1890).

SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE. -- (a) Impartial:-- WAUTERS, Resumé des principaux faits de l'histoire de l'oeuvre africaine (Brussels, 1878-87); Alexis, Le Congo Belge illustré ou l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (Liège, 1892); LALLEMAND, L'oeuvre Congolaise. Esquisse historique et geographique (Brussels, 1897); Etudes ethnologiques et ethnographiques sur les populations du Congo. Questionnaire ethnographique, published by the Museum of the Independent State (Brussels, 1898); Questionnaire ethnographique et sociologique, published by the Museum of the Indep. State (Brussels, 1898); MILLE, Au Congo Belge, avec des notes et des documents récents relatifs au Congo Français (Paris, 1899); PHILIPS, An Account of the Congo Independent State (Philadelphia, 1899); BLANCHARD, Formation et constitution l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (Paris, 1899); WAUTERS L'Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels, 1899); Manuel du voyaguer et du résident au Congo, rédigé sous la direction du Colonel Donny (Brussels, 1900); SPEYER, Comment nous gouvernerons le Congo (Brussels, 1902); VERMEERSCH, La Question Congolaise; Les destinées du Congo Belge (Brussels, 1906); LOUWERS, Eléments du droit de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo; BOULGER, The Congo State, or the Growth of Civilization in Central Africa (Londom, 1898); CATTIER, Droit et administration de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels, 1898); Bulletin officiel de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo; Rapport au Roi Souverain (June, 1906); Rapport de la Commission d'enquête (Oct., 1905); MAC DOUNEL, King Leopold II (London, 1905); GEIL, A Yankee in Pygmyland (LONDON, 1905); Etat Indépendant du Congo. Département de l'Intérieur. Recuil administratif (Brussels, 1907); STARR, The Truth about the Congo (Chicago, 1907).

(b) Favourable to the State: -- DROOGMANS, Le Congo. 4 Conférences publiques (Brussels, 1894); L'Etat Indépendant du Congo à l'exposition de Bruxelles--Tervueren (1897); GILSON, GOFFERT, etc., L'oeuvre coloniale du roi en Afrique, résultats de 20 ans (Brussels, 1898); GOFFART, Traité méthodique de géographie du Congo, etc. (Antwerp, 1898). The reviews: La Belgique Coloniale; La Belgique Maritime, et Coloniale; Le Congo Belge (Brussels. See also NYS, The Independent State of the Congo and the International Law (Brussels, 1903); DESCHAMPS, New Africa (London, 1903); La Vérité sur le Congo (Brussels, 1902-06); WACK, The Story of the Congo Free State (New York, 1905); Histoire militaire du Congo (Brussels, 1906); CASTELEIN, L'Etat du Congo (1907).

(c) Rather Hostile: -- ETIENNE, Le Congo et l'acte général de Berlin in Revue Politique, XXXVIII; MOREL, Affairs of West Africa (London, 1902); MARK TWAIN, King Leopold's Soliloquy; A Defense of His Congo Rule (Boston, 1905); BOURNE, Civilisation in Congoland (London, 1903); MILLE, Le Congo Léopoldien (Paris, 1906); CATTIER, Etude sur le situation de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (Brussels); MOREL, Red Rubber: The Story of the Red Rubber Slave Trade Flourishing in the Year of Grace, 1906 (London, 1906).

VIII. -- FOR MISSIONS: BENTLEY, Pioneering on the Congo (London, 1900); de PIERPONT, Au Congo et aux Indes (Brussels, 1906); de DEKKEN, Deux and au Congo (1900); BETHUNE, Les missions cath. d'Afrique (1889); NAYZAN, Fetishism in West Africa (London, 1904); Les missions cath. d'Afrique; Dark Africa and the Way Out; A Scheme for Civilizing and Evangelizing the Dark Continent (London, 1902); BURCKHARDT, Les missions évangéliques (Lausanne, 1888); BAESTEN, Les jésuites au Congo (1548-1759) in Précis historiques (Brussels, 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896); Missions catholiques du Congo. Aperçu sur certaines questions traitées dans la réunion tenue à Leopoldville en Fév, 1907 (Kisantu); Missiones catholicae curâ S. Congregationis de Prop. Fidei descriptae (Rome, 1907); VAN STRAELEN, Missions cath. et protest. au Congo (Brussels, 1898); See also the reviews: Les Missions belges (Brussels, 1898--); Missions en chine et au Congo (Scheut-lez-Bruxelles, 1898--); Le mouvement des missions cath. au Congo (Brussels, 1888--).

A. VERMEERSCH

Congregatio de Auxiliis

A commission established by Pope Clement VIII to settle the theological controversy regarding grace which arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. Vast as was the subject of that controversy, its principle question, and the one that gave its name to the whole dispute, concerned the help (auxilia) afforded by grace; while the crucial point was the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom. We know on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man's consent and that action takes place. On the other hand it is certain that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two things--the infallible result and liberty--be harmonized? The Dominicans solved the difficulty by their theory of physical premotion and predetermination; grace is efficacious when, in addition to the assistance necessary for an action, it gives a physical impulsion by means of which God determines and applies our faculties to the action. The Jesuits found the explanation in that mediate knowledge (scientia media) whereby God knows, in the objective reality of things what a man, in any circumstances in which he might be placed, would do. Foreseeing, for instance, that a man would correspond freely with grace A, and that he, freely, would not correspond with grace B, God, desirous of man's conversion, gives him grace A. This is efficacious grace. The Dominicans declared that the Jesuits conceded too much to free will, and so tended toward Pelagianism. In turn, the Jesuits complained that the Dominicans did not sufficiently safeguard human liberty, and seemed in consequence to lean towards Calvinism.

The controversy is usually supposed to have begun in the year 1581, when the Jesuit Prudencio de Montemayor defended certain theses on grace which were vigorously attacked by the Dominican Domingo Baûez. That this debate took place is certain, but the text of the Jesuit's these have never been published. As to those which were reported to the Inquisition, neither Montemayer nor any other Jesuit ever acknowledged them as his. The controversy went on for six years, passing through three phases -- in Louvain, in Spain, and in Rome. At Louvain was the famous Michel Baius, whose propositions were condemned by the Church. The Jesuit (afterwards Cardinal) Francisco de Toledo, authorized by Gregory XIII, had obliged Baius, in 1580, to retract his errors in presence of the entire university. Baius thereupon conceived a deep aversion for the Jesuits and determined to have revenge. During the Lent of 1597, he, with some of his colleagues, extracted from the notebooks of certain students who were disciples of the Jesuits, thirty-four propositions, many of them plainly erroneous, and asked the university to condemn "these Jesuit doctrines". Learning of this scheme, Leonard Lessius, the most distinguished theologian of the Society in the Low Countries and the special object of Baius' attacks, drew up another list of thirty-four propositions containing the genuine doctrine of the Jesuits, presented them to the dean of the university, and asked for a hearing before some of the professors, in order to show how different his teaching was from that which was ascribed to him. The request was not granted. The university published, 9 September, 1587, a condemnation of the first thirty-four propositions. At once, throughout Belgium, the Jesuits were called heretics and Lutherans. The university urged the bishop of the Low Countries and the other universities to endorse the censure, and this in fact was done by some of the prelates and in particular the University of Douai. In view of these measures, the Belgian provincial of the Society, Francis Coster, issued a protest against the action of those who, without letting the Jesuits be heard, accused them of heresy. Lessius also published a statement to the effect that the university professors had misrepresented the Jesuit doctrine. The professors replied with warmth. To clear up the issues Lessius, at the insistence of the Archbishop of Mechlin, formulated six antitheses, or brief statements, embodying the doctrine of the Jesuits relative to the matter of the condemned propositions, the third and fourth antithesis bearing upon the main problem, i.e., efficacious grace. The discussion was kept up on both sides for a year longer, until the papal nuncio succeeded in softening its asperities. He reminded the contestants that definitive judgment in such matters belonged to the Holy see and he forwarded to Sixtus V the principal publications of both parties with a petition for a final decision. This however, was not rendered; a controversy on the same lines had been started at Salamanca, and attention now centered on Spain, where the two discussions were merged into one.

In 1588 the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina published at Lisbon his "Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiæ donis", in which he explained efficacious grace on the basis of scientia media. Baûez, the Dominican professor at Salamanca, informed the Archduke Albert, Viceroy of Portugal, that the work contained certainly thirteen provisions which the Spanish Inquisition had censured. The archduke forbade the sale of the book and sent a copy to Salamanca. Baûez examined it and reported to the archduke that out of the thirteen propositions nine were held by Molina and that in consequence the book ought not to be circulated. He also noted the passages which, as he thought, contained the errors. Albert referred his comments to Molina who drew up the rejoinder. As the book had been approved by the Inquisition in Portugal, and its sale permitted by the Councils of Portugal and of Castille and Aragon it was thought proper to print at the end the replies of Molina; with these the work appeared in 1589. The Dominicans attacked it on the grounds that Molina and all the Jesuits denied efficacious grace. The latter replied that such a denial was impossible on the part of any Catholic. What they, the Jesuits, attacked, was the Dominican theory of predetermination, which they regarded as inc ompatible with human freedom. The debates continued for five years and, in 1594, became public and turbulent at Valladolid, where Antonio de Padilla, S.J., and Diego Nuûo, O.P., defended their respective positions. Similar encounters took place at Salamanca, Saragossa, Cordova, and other Spanish cities. In view of the disturbances thus created, Clement VIII took the matter into his own hands and ordered both parties to refrain from further discussion and await the decision of the Apostolic See.

The pope then asked an expression of opinion from various universities and distinguished theologians of Spain. Between 1594 and 1597 twelve reports were submitted; by the three universities of Salamanca, Alcalç, and Sigüenza; by the bishops of Coria, Sigovia, Plasencia, Cartagena and Mondoñedo, by Serra, Miguel Salon (Augustinian Friar), Castro (Canon of Toledo), and Luis Coloma, Prior of the Augustinians at Valladolid. There were also forwarded to Rome some statements in explanation and defense of the Jesuit and of the Dominican theory. Clement VIII appointed a commission under the presidency of Cardinals Madrucci and Aragone, which began its labours 2 Jan., 1598, and on 19 March handed in the result condemning Molina's book. Displeased at their haste in treating a question of such importance, the pope ordered them to go over the work again, keeping in view the documents sent from Spain. Though the examination of these would have required several years, the commission reported again in November and insisted on the condemnation of Molina. Thereupon Clement VIII ordered the generals of the Dominicans and the Jesuits, respectively, to appear with some of their theologians before the commission, explain their doctrines, and settle their differences. In obedience to this command both general began (22 February, 1599) before the commission a series of conferences which lasted through that year. Bellarmine, created cardinal in March, was admitted to the sessions. Little, however, was accomplished, the Dominicans aiming at criticism of Molina rather than exposition of their own views. The death of Cardinal Madrucci interrupted these conferences, and Clement VIII, seeing that no solution was to be reached on these lines, determined to have the matter discussed in his presence. At the first debate, 19 March, 1602, the pope presided, with Cardinal Borghese (later Paul V) and Arragone assisting, as well as the members of the former commission and various theologians summoned by the pope. Sixty-eight sessions were thus held (1602-1605).

Clement VIII died 5 March, 1605, and after the brief reign of Leo IX, Paul V ascended the papal throne. In his presence seventeen debates took place. The Dominicans were represented by Diego Alvarez and Tomçs de Lemos; the Jesuits by Gregoria de Valencia, Pedro de Arrubal, Fernando de Bastida and Juan de Salas. Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated (5 September, 1607) to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December, 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century. (See also Augustine of Hippo; Baius; Baûez; Grace, Controversies on; Molina; Thomism.)

Aug. Leblanc (pseudon. of Hyacinthe Serry, O.P.), Historia Congregationum de auxiliis divinæ gratiæ sub Summis Pontificibus Clement VIII et Paulo V (Louvain, 1700); Theodorus Eleutherius (pseudon. of Livinius de Meyer, S.J.), Historia controversarium de divinæ gratiæ auxiliis sub Summis Pontificibus Clement VIII et Paulo V (Venice, 1742); Schneeman, Die Entstehung u. weitere Entwicklung der thomischtisch-molinistischen Controverse (Freiburg, 1789; also in Latin, tr. Freiburg, 1881); de Régnon, Baûez et Molina (Paris, 1883); Billuart, Le thomisme triomphant; Apologie du thomisme triomphant (Liege, 1731); Gaurad, Thomisme et Molinisme (Toulouse, 1890); Dummermuth, S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicæ (Paris, 1886); Frins, S. Thomæ Aquin. doctrina de cooperatione Dei (Paris, 1892); Dummermuth, Defensio doctinæ S. Thomæ, a reply to Frins (Louvain 1895).

ANTONIO ASTRAIN

Congregationalism

The retention by the Anglican State Church of the prelatical form of government and of many Catholic rites and ceremonies offensive to genuine Protestants resulted in the formation of innumerable Puritan factions, with varying degrees of radicalism. The violent measures adopted by Elizabeth and the Stuarts to enforce conformity caused the more timid and moderate of the Puritans to remain in communion with the State Church, though keeping up to the present day an incessant protest against "popish tendencies"; but the more advanced and daring of their leaders began to perceive that there was no place for them in a Church governed by a hierarchy and enslaved to the civil power. To many of them, Geneva was the realization of Christ's kingdom on earth, and, influenced by the example of neighbouring Scotland, they began to form churches on the model of Presbyterianism (q.v.). Many, however, who had withdrawn from the "tyranny" of the episcopate, were loath to submit to the dominion of presbyteries and formed themselves into religious communities acknowledging "no head, priest, prophet or king save Christ". These dissenters were known as "Independents" and in spite of fines, imprisonments, and the execution of at least five of their leaders, they increased steadily in numbers and influence, until they played a conspicuous part in the revolution that cost Charles I his crown and life. The earliest literary exponent of Independence was Robert Brown, from whom the dissenters were nicknamed Brownists. Brown was born in 1550, of a good family, in Rutlandshire, and studied at Cambridge. About 1580 he began to circulate pamphlets in which the State Church was denounced in unmeasured terms and the duty was inculcated of separating from communion with it. The godly were not to look to the State for the reform of the Church; they must set about it themselves on the Apostolic model. Brown defines the Church as a "company or number of Christians or believers, who, by a willing covenant made with their God, are under the government of God and Christ, and keep his laws in one holy communion". This new gospel attracted numerous adherents. A congregation was formed in Norwich which grew rapidly. Summoned before the bishop's court, Brown escaped the consequences of his zeal through the intervention of his powerful relation, Lord Burghley, and, with his followers, migrated to Holland, the common refuge of the persecuted reformers of all Europe. The Netherlands were soon flooded with refugees from England, and large congregations were established in the principal cities. The most flourishing Independent Church was that of Leyden under the direction of John Robinson. It was to this congregation that the "Pilgrim Fathers" belonged, who in 1620 set sail in the Mayflower for the New World.

The successful establishment of the New England colonies was an event of the utmost importance in the development of Congregationalism, a term preferred by the American Puritans to Independency and gradually adopted by their coreligionists in Great Britain. Not only was a safe haven now opened to the fugitives from persecution, but the example of orderly communities based entirely on congregational principles, "without pope, prelate, presbytery, prince or parliament", was a complete refutation of the charge advanced by Anglicans and Presbyterians that Independency meant anarchy and chaos, civil and religious. In the Massachusetts settlements, "the New England way", as it was termed, developed, not indeed without strifes and dissensions, but without external molestation. They formed, from the Puritan standpoint, the veritable kingdom of the saints; and the slightest expression of dissent from the Gospel was punished by the ministers was punished with scourging, exile, and even death. The importance of stamping out Nonconformity in the American colonies did not escape the vigilance of Archbishop Laud; he had concerted measures with Charles I for imposing the episcopacy upon them, when war broke out between the king and the Parliament. During the Civil War in England, though few in number compared with the Presbyterians, they grew in importance through the ability of their leaders, notably of Oliver Cromwell who gained for them the ascendency in the army and the Commonwealth. In the Westminster Assembly convened by the Long Parliament in 1643, Independency was ably represented by five ministers, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge and Sidrach Simpson, known as "The Five Dissenting Brethren", and ten or eleven laymen. They all took a prominent part in the debates of the Assembly, pleading strongly for toleration at the hands of the Presbyterian majority. They adopted the doctrinal articles of the Westminster Confession with slight modifications; but as there could be no basis of agreement between them and the Presbyterians regarding church government, a meeting of "elders and messengers" of "the Congregational churches" was held at the Savoy in 1658 and drew up the famous "Savoy Declaration", which was also accepted in New England and long remained as authoritative as such a document could be in a denomination which, theoretically, rejected all authority. From this Declaration we obtain a clear idea of the Congregationalist notion of the Church.

The elect are called individually by the Lord, but "those thus called (through the ministry of the word by His Spirit) he commandeth to walk together in particular Societies or Churches, for their mutual edification and the due performance of that Public Worship which He requireth of them in this world". Each of these particular churches is the Church in the full sense of the term and is not subject to any outside jurisdiction. The officers of the church, pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons, are "chosen by the common suffrage of the church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of that church, if there be any before constituted therein"; the essence of the call consists in election by the Church. To preserve harmony, no person ought to be added to the Church without the consent of the Church itself. The Church has power to admonish and excommunicate disorderly members, but this power of censure "is to be exercised only towards particular members of each church as such". "In case of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in or by any proceeding in censures not agreeable to truth and order, it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding one communion together do by their messengers meet in a Synod or Council to consider and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned: Howbeit, these Synods so assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers." If any person, for specified reasons, be dissatisfied with his church, "he, consulting with the church, or the officer or officers thereof, may peaceably depart from the communion of the church wherewith he hath so walked, to join himself to some other church". Finally it is stated that "churches gathered and walking according to the mind of Christ, judging other churches (though less pure) to be true churches, may receive unto occasional communion with them such members of these churches as are credibly testified to be godly and to live without offense".

Such are the main principles of Congregationalism regarding the constitution of the church; in doctrine the Congregational teachers were, for the most part, strictly Calvinistic. Independent ascendency came to an abrupt close at the death of Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II. The Presbyterians, who had seated the Stuart on his throne, might hope for his favour; there was slight prospect that he would tolerate the democratic tenets of Congregationalism. As a matter of fact Charles and his servile parliament persecuted both forms of dissent. A succession of severe edicts, the Corporation Act, 1661, the Act of Uniformity, 1662, the Conventicle Act, 1663, renewed, 1670, the Five-Mile Act, 1665, and the Test Act, 1673, made existence almost impossible to Nonconformists of all shades of belief. Yet in spite of persecution, they held out until the eighteenth century brought toleration and finally freedom. It is characteristic of the Puritans that, notwithstanding the sufferings they had undergone they spurned the indulgence offered by James II, because it tolerated popery; in fact, they were more zealous than the rest of the nation in driving James from the throne. The exclusion of Dissenters from the British universities created a serious problem for the Congregationalists as well as for the Catholics; to the sacrifices which these and other denominations out of communion with the State Church made for the maintenance of academies and colleges conducted according to their respective principles, England, like America, owes that great boon so essential to the well-being of civilized nations, freedom of education. During the eighteenth century, while the clergy of the Established Church, educated and maintained by the State, were notoriously incapable and apathetic, whatever there was of spiritual energy in the nation emanated from the denominational colleges.

Congregational Unions

The Congregational churches were at their best while the pressure of persecution served to cement them; this removed, the absence of organization left them an easy prey to the inroads of rationalism and infidelity. Before the end of the eighteenth century many of them lapsed into Unitarianism, alike in England and America. A new problem was thus forced upon them, viz. how to maintain the unity of the denomination without consciously violating their fundamental doctrine of the entire independence of each particular church. "A Congregational Union of England and Wales", formed in 1833 and revised in 1871, issued a "Declaration of the Faith, Church Order, and Discipline of the Congregational or Independent Dissenters", and provided for annual meetings and a president who should hold office for a year. American Congregationalism has always been of a more organic character. While persisting in emphasizing the complete independence of particular churches, it has made ample provision, at the expense of consistency, for holding the denomination together. No minister is admitted except upon approval of the clerical "association" to which he must belong. To be acknowledged as Congregationalist, a new community must be received into fellowship by the churches of its district. Should a church fall into serious error, or tolerate and uphold notorious scandals, the other churches may withdraw their fellowship, and it ceases to be recognized as Congregationalist. If a minister is found guilty of gross heresy or evil life, a council summoned to examine his case may, if necessary, withdraw from him the fellowship of the churches. The statements of Henry M. Dexter, D.D., the historian of his sect ("American Encyclopedia", s.v. "Congregationalism"), prove that there is a marked contrast between Congregational theory and practice. The Congregationalists have been very active in home and foreign mission work and possess eight theological seminaries in the United States, viz. Andover, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; Bangor, Maine; New Haven and Hartford, Connecticut; Oberlin, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; and the Pacific, Berkeley, California. Since 1871 national councils, composed of delegates from all the States of the Union, are convened every third year. "The Congregational Handbook for 1907" gives the following statistics of the denomination in America: Churches 5931; ministers 5933; members 668,736. Included in this count are Cuba with 6 ministers and 636 members and Porto Rico with 3 ministers and 50 members. In England and Wales the statistics for 1907 were: sittings 1,801,447; communicants 498,953; ministers 3197; local preachers 5603. The efforts made in recent years to find a basis for some kind of corporate union between the Congregationalists, the Methodist Protestants, and the United Brethren in Christ have not been successful.

Walker, A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States (New York, 1894); Idem, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (ibid., 1893); Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, as seen in its Literature (ibid., 1880). Each of these works contains a good bibliography.

J.F. LOUGHLIN

Congregational Singing

In his Instruction on sacred music, commonly referred to as the Motu Proprio (22 Nov., 1903), Pius X says (no. 3): "Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of Gregorian chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times". These words suggest a brief treatment of congregational singing with respect to (a) its ancient use, (b) its formal prohibition and gradual decay, (c) its present-day revival, (d) the character which that revival may assume.

(a) The first testimony is found in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians (v, 19): "Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord". Cardinal Bona finds in these words a witness to the fact that "from the very beginnings of the Church, psalms and hymns were sung in the assembly of the faithful", and understands them to refer to an alternated chant (mutuo et alterno cantu). McEvilly in his "Commentary" applies them to public and private meetings. St Augustine (Ep. cxix, ch. xviii) says: "As to the singing of psalms and hymns, we have the proofs, the examples, and the instructions of the Lord Himself, and of the Apostles". (Cf. also Col., iii, 16; I Cor., xiv, 26.) In the ancient congregational singing both sexes took part; the words of St. Paul imposing silence on women in church being interpreted to refer only to exhorting or instructing. Duchesne describes how the earliest worship of the Christians was parallel to that, not of the Temple of the Jews at Jerusalem, but of the local synagogues, the Christians borrowing thence their four elements of Divine service-the lections, the chants (of the Psalter), the homilies, and the prayers. In treating of the Syrian Liturgy of the fourth century, he makes up a composite picture from the 23rd catechetical discourse of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (about the year 347), the Apostolic Constitutions (II, 57; VIII, 5-15), and the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, and describes the Divine service (Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London, 1903, p. 57-64), and incidentally shows the part the congregation took in the singing.

(b) A council held at Laodicea in the fourth century decreed (can. xv), that "besides the appointed singers who mount the ambo and sing from the book, others shall not sing in the Church". Cardinal Bona (Rerum Liturg., Bk. I, ch. xxv, sec. 19) explains that this canon was issued because the unskillful singing of the people interfered with the decorous performance of the chant. The decree was not accepted everywhere, as Bona shows. With respect to France, he also remarks that the custom of popular (congregational) song ceased a few years after Caesarius; for the Second Synod of Tours decreed "that the laity, whether in vigils or at Masses, should not presume to stand with the clergy near the altar whereon the Sacred Mysteries are celebrated, and that the chancel should be reserved to the choirs of singing clerics". Hereupon Sala notes (no. 4) that "this custom still obtains, nevertheless, in the Eastern Church; and in many places in the Western Church, very remote from cities, and therefore tenacious of older customs and less influenced by newer ones, the people learn the ecclesiastical chant and sing it together with the clergy". Many causes, doubtless, combined to bring about the present lamentable silence of our congregations, amongst which the most prominent was probably the one mentioned by Bona as having occasioned the decree of the Council of Laodicea. That the cause was not, as Dickinson thinks, "the steady progress of ritualism and the growth of sacerdotal ideas", which "inevitably deprived the people of all initiative in the worship, and concentrated the offices of public devotion, including that of song, in the hands of the clergy" (Music in the History of the Western Church, New York, 1902, p. 48), may be inferred from the efforts of ecclesiastical authority to revive the older custom of congregational singing, as well be seen under (c).

(c) The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866) expressed (no. 380) its earnest wish that the rudiments of Gregorian chant should be taught in the parish schools, in order that "the number of those who can sing the chant well having increased more and more, gradually the greater part, at least, of the people should, after the fashion still existing in some places of the Primitive Church, learn to sing Vespers and the like together with the sacred ministers and the choir". The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) repeats (no. 119) the words of the Second Council, prefacing them with denuo confirmemus.

(d) The words of the quoted councils and of the pope imply a restoration of congregational singing through instruction in Gregorian chant, and therefore clearly refer to the strictly liturgical offices such as solemn or high Mass, Vespers, Benediction (after the Tantum Ergo has begun). Congregational singing at low Mass and at other services in the church, not strictly "liturgical" in ceremonial character, has always obtained, more or less, in our churches. With respect to the strictly liturgical services, it is to be hoped that the congregation may be instructed sufficiently to sing, besides the responses to the celebrant (especially those of the Preface), the ordinary (i.e. the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei) of the Mass in plain chant; leaving the Introit, Gradual or Tract, sequence (if there be one), Offertory, and Communion to the choir; the Psalms and hymns at Vespers, leaving the antiphons to the choir. The singing might well be made to alternate between congregation and choir. Perosi made a strong plea to the musical congress of Padua (June, 1907) for such congregational singing of the Credo (cf. Civilta Cattolica, 6 July, 1907). (See CHOIR; MUSIC; SINGING, CHORAL.)

WAGNER, Origine et Developpement du Chant Liturgigue, tr. BOUR (Tournai, 1904). 14 sqq. Gives a good summary of the history of the earliest congregational singing. Two articles in the American Ecclesiastical Review (July, 1892, 19-29, and August, 1892, 120-133) give history, references, limits of vernacular singing, and methods of training. See also Manual Church Music (quarterly) (December, 1905), 21-33 for methods; also DICKINSON, Music in the History of the Western Church, 223, 242, 376 for congregational singing in Protestant churches.

H.T. HENRY

Catholic Congresses

One of the remarkable and important manifestations of the social and religious life of the present day are gatherings of Catholics in general public conferences. This is the case both when these assemblies consist of delegates representing the entire Catholic population of a country or nation meeting to express opinions concerning matters close to its heart; or when they consist simply of the members of some one Catholic association who have come together for the advancement of the particular aims of the society. Taken collectively, these congresses prove that the life of the Catholic Church of the present day is not confined to Church devotions; that not merely individual classes and circles, but all Catholics, men of every rank and of every degree of culture, of all callings, all ages, and of all nations have been quickened to an unheard-of extent by the ecclesiastical movement of the nineteenth century, and gladly co-operate with it. This movement in Catholic life has been made possible by the development of travelling facilities, the multiplication of social interests, and also by the political freedom of modern nations. But Catholics would probably not have made use of these aids in such large measure if they had not been stirred up by extraordinary zeal.

I. HISTORY

The first large Congress was held by the Catholics of Germany. In the year of political revolutions, 1848, they founded throughout Germany local Catholic associations, called "Piusvereine" after Pope Pius IX, the Catholics of Mainz taking the lead. Their object was to stimulate Catholics to make use of the favourable moment to free the Church from dependence on the State. In accordance with an agreement made by a number of distinguished Catholics at the festivities held to celebrate the completion of a portion of the cathedral of Cologne, August, 1848, these associations met in convention at Mainz, 3-6 October of the same year. In the neighbouring city of Frankfort the German Diet was in session. Only a few weeks before, this body had decided to separate the schools from the Church, in spite of the opposing votes of the Catholic deputies, and had filled the Catholic people with a deep distrust of the Frankfort Assembly. A large part of the Catholic members of the Diet went to Mainz, and expressed their views, thus directing widespread attention to the convention and arousing the enthusiasm of its members, which reached its highest pitch when one of the deputies, Wilhelm Emanuel von Ketteler, the parish priest of Hopsten, arose and urged the Congress to give their attention to social as well as religious questions. Thenceforth the General German Catholic Congresses had a distinctive character impressed upon them. It became their mission to prove and intensify the devotion of German Catholics to their Church, to defend the rights of the Church and the liberties of Catholics as citizens, to preserve the Christian character of the schools, and to further the Christian spirit in society. At first the congress met semi-annually; after 1850, it met annually in a German or Austrian city. From the start it regarded the development of German Catholic societies into a power in national affairs as one of the most important means of gaining its ends. Consequently the Congress gave its attention not only to the "Piusvereine" but also interested itself in all other Catholic societies, e. g. the St. Vincent de Paul Conferences, the Gesellenvereine (journeymen's unions), the reading-circles, the students' corps, etc., and also encouraged the founding of important new associations, such as the societies in aid of German emigrants, the St. Boniface Association, the St. Augustine Association for the development of the Catholic press, and others. The end sought was to combine the general assemblies of as many of these societies as possible with that of the "Piusvereine", or to secure their convening at the same time and place. Thus the Catholic Congress became in a few years and is still an annual general meeting for the majority of German Catholic societies. This appears from the programme of every German Catholic Congress. As long as the Catholic Congress was principally a representative general meeting of Catholic societies, its proceedings were chiefly discussions and debates and the number of those who attended was relatively small. This was the case in the first decade of its existence. Still even at this time one or more public mass-meetings were held at each Congress, in order to arouse the interest of the Catholic population of the place of assembly and its vicinity. The most celebrated address of the first decade was made in 1849 at Ratisbon by Dollinger on the "Independence of the Church." The most important of the early German Catholic Congresses was the session held at Vienna, 1853.

Owing to epidemics and political difficulties up to 1858 the congress met irregularly and the attendance decreased so that its future appeared doubtful. After 1858, however, the congress rose again in importance while at the same time its character gradually changed. It became a general assembly of German Catholics, and the attendance greatly increased. In these changed conditions the public sessions devoted to oratorical addresses from distinguished speakers as well as the private sessions for deliberation grew in importance. In these years Catholic Germany could boast of several very eloquent orators, the best among whom were Moufang, Heinrich, and Haffner, theologians of Mainz, and after these Lindau, a merchant of Heidelberg. The participation by the Catholic nobility in the meetings made them socially more impressive. The most striking speech of this period was made at Aachen in 1862 by Moufang on the "Duties of Catholic Men." Among the subjects debated the school and education aroused the most feeling; in connexion with these great discussions great attention was given, under the guidance of Dr. Hülskamp, editor of "The Literarischer Handweiser", to the development of the press and popular literature. Since the Frankfort Congress of 1863 the labour question has occupied more and more of the attention of the assembly.

The hope awakened in the hearts of Catholics by the apparently victorious progress of the Catholic movement in Western Europe gave special inspiration to the gatherings of these years. A similar congress was held by the Swiss Catholics; a more important development was the resolve of the Belgian Catholics, instigated by the success of the German Catholic Congress near them at Aachen, to hold Catholic congresses for Belgium and to invite the most distinguished Catholic men of the entire world to participate. The intention was to form a central point for the Catholic movement of Western Europe and to give it a perpetual organization, making it an international movement, so that in the future Catholics of all nations could work together. The chief organizer of the preparatory plans was Ducpétiaux. The first Belgian congress was held at Mechlin, 18-22 August, 1863, and was a great success. The most prominent champions of the Church in Europe attended the Belgian Congresses: Montalembert, Prince Albert de Broglie, Cardinals Wiseman and Manning, the two Reichenspergers (August and Peter) and Kölping, the Abbé Mermillod; representing the United States were Bishop Fitzpatrick, of Boston, and L. Silliman Ives, of New York. Reports on the Catholic life and work of every country were presented: much time was devoted to the discussion of social questions, and decided differences of opinion were expressed. The most brilliant success was achieved by two discourses by Montalembert on "A Free Church in a Free State." A second congress took place in September of the next year, and the intention was to hold yearly meetings; but already the first clouds of internal conflict among Catholics began to appear. According to their views on political liberalism and modern science, men's minds drifted apart. Henceforth Catholics could not be gathered together for a common meeting. The only later congress was held at Mechlin in 1867; the Swiss assemblies also ceased after a short time, so that soon the German Catholic Congresses were the only large assemblies of the kind. At the Bamberg Congress, 1868, a standing Central Committee was formed, which gave a permanent form of organization to the German Catholic gathering.

Development in France

Towards the end of the sixties a third period of progressive development began, due to the increasing interest of Catholics in social problems and the growth of the spirit of association among Catholic workmen. In Belgium, in 1867, it was decided to form a union of all workmen's associations in order to systematize their development and growth. A standing committee was formed, and a first congress was called to meet at Mons in 1871. Its object was to strengthen and aid the movement for organization among workingmen, and at the same time to give it a Christian character and to enable workingmen to make their views and wishes effective. The work grew rapidly in importance; up to 1875 the president was Clément Bivort, and over 50,000 workingmen were connected with it. The most successful congress was that held in 1875 at Mechlin. After this, the organization declined, partly it would seem, because, instead of following purely practical economic ends, under French influence politics were introduced; so much weight was raid on the religious element that social interests did not receive their due, because the members were not agreed as to the intervention of the State in socio-economic activities, and because sufficient consideration was not given to the growing independence of workingmen. A Catholic workingmen's movement also sprang up in the great German industrial region of the Lower Rhine; this did not grow into a national convention, but it exerted its influence at the meetings of the general Catholic Congress, especially at the one held at Düsseldorf, 1869. In France there was formed an "Union des associations ouvrières catholiques" for the purpose of promoting all Catholic efforts and "to develop a race of Christian workingmen's families for the Church and State".

The first congress of this association was held at Nevers, 1871, but it never grew to much importance, although a permanent central office was founded, and special committees were appointed to encourage sports, clubs for study, etc. The association laid undue stress on the cultivation of religious life, and did nothing to develop social economics in connexion with politics and but little for the class interests of workingmen; it was hardly more than a confraternity. In Northern France it succeeded owing to personal influence. The "Cercles d'ouvriers catholiques", founded by the Comte de Mun in 1873, were much more successful. De Mun desired to unite in these cercles the best mechanical and agricultural labourers, to bring them under the influence of educated practical Catholic gentlemen, so that, led by the latter, the workingmen might exert a social and political influence in the world of labour. At the same time he wished the organization to frame and advocate a distinct plan of social reforms. From 1875 the work of advocating reforms fell chiefly to the annual sessions which were composed of the delegates of the "Secretariates" of the circles, the deputies from all the circles of the province, and Catholic dignitaries who were interested in social questions. The sessions for deliberation had an average attendance of from three to four hundred members, and the public meetings were often attended by several thousand persons. The assemblies were managed by the Comte de Mun, assisted by the Marquis de la Tour du Pin, M. de la Guillonnière, and M. Florroy. These meetings and the work of the various circles first spread among French Catholics correct conceptions of social problems. The practical social results became, however, gradually smaller. With the help of the congress De Mun gradually worked out a complete social programme; by means of industrial associations, with perfect freedom of organization, laws were to be obtained granting to the working classes proper representation in the political bodies of the country, effective measures were to be taken to aid workmen by means of insurance and the regulation of wages, their corporal and mental well-being were to be protected by Sunday rest, limitation of working-hours, etc.; compulsory arbitration in disputes between masters and workmen was to be legally enforced. The programme is noteworthy because it included reform of taxation, and also because it aimed to aid agricultural labourers as well as mechanics. De Mun's main mistake was, that he refused on principle to allow the workingmen to organize independently, and permitted only organizations common to workingmen and employers. Although apparently the congresses just described and the societies connected with them were the proofs of the growth in strength of the economic movement, yet in their first development they did not advance far enough to be able to impress their character upon the Catholic congresses of the third period. This was defined by the further growth of the general Catholic conventions. After the successful settlement of the differences in the Church by the Vatican Council, in consequence of the Kulturkampf, the German Catholic Congresses regained their former importance with a religious enthusiasm never before witnessed. At the same time the French Catholics also started general congresses.

During the siege of Paris by the Germans, a committee had been formed in the city to protect Catholic interests against the danger from anti-religious and revolutionary sects. In a circular of 25 August, 1872, this committee proposed that all forms of Catholic associations of the country and all French Catholic organizations should create a general representative body for the purpose of defending their common interests. This circular led to the convening of the first "Congrès des comités catholiques" at Paris, 1872, and the sessions of this body were held annually until 1892. They were originally presided over by M. Bailloud, their founder, afterwards by Senator Chesnelong. The congress, divided into different sections, busied itself with purely religious questions, with teaching, education, the press, and social subjects. A large part of the attention of these assemblies was given to the non-governmental schools, and much was done for them. On the other hand, the incessant and vehement agitation of the assemblies against free, obligatory, lay instruction had no apparent effect. The French, like the German congresses, received strong encouragement from the pope, and the bishops ardently promoted them. Nevertheless, owing to its composition, the French congress never attained the importance of the German assemblage. Although intended to be a union of all the Catholic forces of France, it drew together only the Monarchists. For although its constitution excluded politics, nevertheless, as the circular of August, 1872, said, it supported the Conservative candidates as a matter of course. The connexion with the Royalists made the congress unfruitful also in social questions; its social political position was not sufficiently advanced, and it offended the classes that were fighting their way up. When it became evident that the Royalist party had failed, the congress declined with it. The sessions ceased when Leo XIII, on receiving the congratulatory telegram of the congress of 1892, expressed the hope that, following his wishes, they should uphold the Republican constitution. The place of the former organization was taken by the "Congrès nationaux catholiques". The first session, held at Reims, was a preparatory one; this was followed by two congresses at Paris, 1897 and 1898. Both their organization and aim were the same as those of the congress of the "Comités catholiques", but the political views held were different; the meetings were gatherings or "Ralliés", that is, of Royalists who had become Republicans and of Christian Democrats. The history of this organization is, briefly, that of the "Ralliés" movement, and it went to pieces with the latter. A working together in the congress of those who were democrats from honest conviction, the politically indifferent "New Catholics", and the "Ralliés", or "Constitutional Righters", who obeyed the papal command against inclination and conviction, proved to be impossible. The "Christian Democrats" met separately, in 1896 and 1897, at Lyons and received the blessing of Leo XIII. But it was found that the views of the members were too divergent to make a continuation of these assemblies profitable. The meetings of the "Cercles d'ouvriers" also came to an end through the failure of the "Ralliés" or "Constitutional Right". From the decade 1880-90 these circles, like those of the "Union des associations ouvrières", were gradually transformed by their leaders into pious confraternities, and the clergy sought to control them more than was wise, making the members feel like irresponsible children. Most of the members of the circles were Royalists, and few of them obeyed the suggestion of the pope as sincerely as did De Mun. In 1892 the congress assembled for the last time; but even before this, of the 1200 still existing circles, a part had combined with the new diocesan organizations, and a part with the "Association catholique de la jeunesse française".

Fourth Period of Development

The fourth and latest period in the development of the Catholic Congresses dates from the last years of the nineteenth century. About 1890, the year when the "People's Union [ Volksverein] of Catholic Germany" was founded, the Catholic social movement reached its full strength and became the leading factor among German Catholic societies. Its influence was well shown by the multiplying of Catholic societies in all directions; it shaped the form and aims of organization, checked the spirit of particularism, induced the societies to combine in a united body, and brought thousands of new members into the branch associations, while directing Catholic organization more and more toward practical social work. The meetings of the congresses are the tangible sign of this social movement; their increase in strength and influence is furthered by the growing interest of the civilized world in all kinds of congresses. It is owing to the centralized, many-sided propaganda of the well-organized "Volksverein", with its 600,000 members, that the German Catholic Congresses have been so successful. The aims of the societies are limited to social work of a practical character, and the annual meetings are held on one of the five days of the session of the Catholic Congress and at the same place. Since the Mannheim Congress of 1892 the meetings of the congresses have been attended by larger numbers of workmen than any other such conventions in Europe, from twenty-five thousand to forty thousand being present at the sessions, the number at a single session often reaching ten thousand persons. In Austria after two decades of hard struggle Christian socialism finally reached success. After 1867 it was for a long time almost impossible to hold a Catholic convention in Austria; now a General Catholic Congress is held every other year, while numerous assemblies convene in the different states forming the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; the general congress of November, 1907, attained nearly as much influence over public opinion as the German Congress; a speech of Burgomaster Luegers of Vienna started the "high-school movement" which has since greatly agitated Austria. Since 1900 a Catholic Congress has been held annually in Hungary; in Spain since 1889 Catholic assemblies have met from time to time; in Switzerland, after suspension for a generation, the first general congress was held in 1903 on the basis of an excellent organization. In 1908 the Danish Catholics of the Copenhagen district met for the first time to discuss their school interests. Before this, in 1886 and 1889, they had met for anniversary celebrations, the first time, in 1886, in conjunction with representatives from Sweden and Norway. About the close of the nineteenth century a congress was held in Italy representing all the Catholic organizations of that country. Not only among the above-named great nations of Europe has Catholic zeal led to the meeting of general congresses, but on both sides of the ocean hardly a year passes in which the Catholics of some country do not unite in a public congress.

However numerous and large these assemblies, whether general or special, have been, they do not represent the whole number of Catholics who take an interest in social reorganization. Catholics have taken a prominent part in many movements which have an interdenominational, universal Christian, or neutral character, because this form of organization can lead to better results. Among these may be mentioned the "Christian Trade Unions" of Germany, the "Christian Farmers' Unions" of Germany and Austria, and the "Société d'économie sociale et union de la paix sociale" of France, founded by Le Play, in 1856, with annual congresses since 1882. A German branch is the "Gesellschaft für sozial Reform" (founded 1890), which gives its attention largely to scientific investigations, but has at times also had much influence on legislation; besides these may be cited the "Workingmen's Gardens", founded in 1897 by Abbé Lemire, with international congresses in 1903 and 1906; the work of the "Raiffeisen Bank" (international assemblies at Tarbes, 1897, and Paris, 1900); the "Anti-Duelling Society", founded by Prince Löwenstein, the last international convention being held at Budapest, 1908; and the association for suppressing public vice, which held an international congress in 1908.

II. INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES

The forerunner of the international congresses of the present was the Mechlin general congress of 1863-64. Since then international Catholic congresses of general scope have been abandoned as unlikely to be profitable, and it has been sufficient, especially as between Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, to invite a few foreign representatives. It was only by limiting the scope of discussion to a few topics, especially religious, that it has been possible to hold Catholic congresses of an international character. Among the best known of these assemblies is the "Eucharistic Congress", the aim of which is to increase and deepen the love of Christ in every way tolerated by the Church: by general communions, general adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and discussion of the best means of increasing devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. Between its sessions the Eucharistic League endeavours to promote and intensify Eucharistic devotion in the various dioceses in which it is organized. Nineteen of these meetings have been held since the first in Lille in 1881, most of them being preponderatingly French, the inspiration of the first coming from Mgr. de Ségur. The first to attract the attention of the Catholic world was that held at Jerusalem in 1893, and they have since grown more solemn and influential. A general congress was held at Rome, 1905, another at Metz, 1907, and one in London 9-13 September, 1908. Both Leo XIII and Pius X manifested great interest in these congresses. Less successful, however, was the attempt of Leo XIII, by means of international congresses, to make the Third Order of St. Francis once more a great socio-religious influence. After he had indicated his plan of Christian social politics in his encyclical "Novarum rerum", he hoped to change the Third Order of St. Francis from a purely pious organization into an instrument for the regeneration of society such as it had been in the thirteenth century. For a time efforts were made, especially in France, to carry out this ambition of the pope. A committee met at Valdes-Bois, July, 1893, at the call of the Minister-General of the Franciscans, and under the presidency of Léon Harmel a plan of action was drawn up: several meetings were held in France, and in 1900 an international congress met at Rome. After this the movement came to an end. The political-social scientists, who were too much absorbed in their political schemes, were unable to grasp the grandeur of the pontiff's idea, and the Tertiaries clung to their accustomed exercises and preferred to remain a pious confraternity rather than to transform themselves into a world-wide religious and social organization.

For a time the Congress of Catholic Savants had nearly as successful a career as the Eucharistic Congress. This was also of French origin, and founded by Mgr. d'Hulst, rector of the Institut Catholique at Paris, in pursuance of a suggestion of Canon Duilhé de Saint-Projet. The founders meant to prove to mankind that Catholics, instead of being opposed to science, were vigorously active in scientific work; to show the harmony of faith and science, and to stimulate the slackened interest of Catholics in science. The plan of the congress was, therefore, largely apologetic; it received the approval of Leo XIII, and from 1888 the sessions were triennial. The first two meetings, at Paris, had an attendance, respectively, of 1605 and 2494 persons; the third congress, at Brussels, 2518; the fourth, at Fribourg, in Switzerland, 3007; the fifth, at Munich, 3367; a sixth was to be held at Rome, 1903, but it did not take place. Originally this congress was divided into six sections; theology, philosophy, law, history, natural sciences, anthropology; four more were added later; exegesis, philology, biology, and Christian art. The character of the international congress of Catholic physicians which met at Rome, 1900, was largely religious.

International meetings are also held by the "Association catholique internationale pour la protection de la jeune flue", a society that looks after young girls who are seeking employment, guards them from dangers, and aids in their training and secures employment for them. It was founded by a Swiss lady, Frau von Reynold, 1896-97. Up to 1897 the sessions were at Fribourg, Switzerland; 1900, at Paris; 1902, at Munich; and in 1906, again at Paris. Fribourg, Switzerland, is the headquarters of the society. Ten countries are represented in it, among them Argentina, South America. Each national society holds its own annual meeting; the French branch, formed in 1898, alternately in the provinces and at Paris; the German, founded 1905, at the session of the Strasburg Catholic Congress in connexion with the Charities Congress. Among national Catholic assemblages may be also included the so-called "Social Week" started by the "Volksverein" (People's Union) of Catholic Germany. Its sessions were held annually, 1892-1900, with the exception of 1897, in different places. About a week was given to an introduction to practical social work. The original attendance of 582 in time rose to about 1000. The sessions were devoted not to discussions, but to instructive lectures and the answering of questions, thus making what might be called a popular travelling school. But a week was too short a period of instruction, and the constant change of place made it difficult to obtain good teachers, consequently a permanent home was given to the association at München-Gladbach, and the annual session was made a two months' course in political economy. A limited number of men and women selected by a committee of the "Volksverein" assisted at these lectures. Since 1904 the shorter courses, in improved form, have been resumed in addition to the longer ones, and the attendance has largely increased. The French Catholics were the first to imitate this example, holding a similar assembly at Lyons in 1904; since then sessions have been held at various places, that of 1907 being at Amiens, and the next at Marseilles. The best of their national economists give their assistance; the programme differs from the German in as much as the topics treated are not exclusively practical, but that the lectures include the philosophical and religious premises of modern social politics, and the part Christians should take in political life. The movement spread to the other Romance countries during 1906-08, and also to Belgium and Holland, and made great progress, thanks to the efforts of Professor Toniolo in organizing a social-science week at Pisa, followed by a larger meeting at Pistoja in October and another at Valencia in December, 1907. In France, Spain, and Italy, this social-science week will hereafter be held according to a joint programme.

III. NATIONAL CATHOLIC CONGRESSES

France

Since 1898 the French Catholics have held provincial conventions in place of general congresses, and since the separation of Church and State, these have given place to diocesan conferences. Such gatherings have been held in about half of the dioceses, the most important being those of the Archdiocese of Paris. Their aim is to unite all Catholic social societies, especially those for the young which in many dioceses have a large membership. In results they are not as effective as general Catholic congresses, but they seem rather to tend to supply what has hitherto been lacking in France, a steady and even attention to details, as the Volksverein has done in Germany, eloquent orations giving place to quiet, practical work. This would be an important result. On the other hand, it is possible that the inclination of the French to overburden even socio-political societies with religious issues, to give them a denominational aspect, and place them under strict clerical control, may be kept alive by the diocesan societies. Before this the impulse to permanent organization came from a congress, whereas now the bishop or an ecclesiastic commissioned by him is the head of the diocesan committee, and the parish priest of the parish committee.

Religious Congresses

In certain French dioceses e. g. at Paris, 1902-1908, special diocesan Eucharistic Congresses have been held. A "Congrès national de l'œuvre des Catéchismes" was held at Paris under the presidency of Mgr. Amette, Archbishop of Paris, 24-26 February, 1908. Seventy dioceses were officially represented, and the attendance was over 2000. It was reported that 20,000 lay catechists, chiefly women, voluntarily assisted the French clergy in the religious instruction of the young. These teachers are united in an archconfraternity, publish a periodical, and receive special preparatory training. Charitable and social care of the families of the pupils is united with the catechetical work.

Sociological Congresses

The "Union des associations ouvrières catholiques" has held, since 1871, annual meetings attended by about 500 delegates. The "Association catholique de la jeunesse française", founded in 1886 by Robert de Roquefeuil, which aims to gather together the Catholic youth of the country, in order to strengthen them in their Faith and to train them to do their duty in the struggle for the reorganization of French society in a Christian spirit, has held several hundred interesting meetings. They have served in part to spread a more thorough knowledge of certain social truths or of certain important problems of religious life; but they have principally made known the work of the "Jeunesse catholique" throughout France. Their assemblies which took up the first mentioned class of subjects were held at Châlons, 1903, where trusts were discussed; at Arras, 1904, which discussed mutual benefit schemes; at Albi, 1905, regulations governing the labour of youthful workmen was the topic; and at Angers, 1908, the agrarian movement. The treatment of these problems at these conventions was excellent. The meetings held to amuse interest in the membership were chiefly provincial, only a few being national assemblies. The growth of the association is best shown by the national conventions: Angers, 1887, 17 groups having 782 members were represented; Besançon, 1898, 25 groups with 16,000 members; Bordeaux, 1907, 180 groups with 75,000 members. There has been a great increase since the meeting at Besançon, chiefly by the admission of young mechanics and farm labourers as well as of the student class. The association has placed itself in all things under the guidance of the Church authorities, consequently, its social as well as its religious activities rest on a denominational basis without any further enunciation of principles, and it has always been very favourably regarded both by the bishops and the Roman authorities. The "Jeunesse catholique" has not been undisturbed by the political troubles of French Catholics. At the congress of Grenoble, 1892, it accepted unconditionally the advice of Leo XIII, but declared at the same time that, in accordance with its statutes, the association had nothing to do with party conflicts. Some of the groups, however, still adhere to the Monarchists. Fortunately, these differences of opinion have not checked the development of the society, the religious and social influence of which on the youth of France is not equalled by that of any other organization.

About the close of the nineteenth century Marc Sangnier and some of his friends founded the society called the "Sillon" (the Furrow). Convinced that in future democracy, which they took as their ideal, would rule the State and society, and desiring to prevent its degeneration under bad and godless leaders, while hoping to keep it from turning against the Church, these young men resolved to build up a democratic constituency of high-minded Christians devoted to the Church and well-informed on political and social questions. The idealism characteristic of the "Sillon" has gained for it the respect of the working-classes. In the beginning the tendencies of the society were not clear, as was shown in the first four general meetings: Paris, 1902; Tours, 1903; Lyons, 1904; Paris, 1905. More definiteness of plan was evident at the later gatherings, Paris, 1906; Orléans, 1907; and especially at Paris, 1908, giving promise that the "Sillon" would develop into a socio-political party taking an active part in national politics. This explains why it asserted its independence of the bishops and intention always to support any political measure that may aid in improving the condition of the working-classes, and especially all efforts aiming at thorough social regeneration and a genuinely democratic form of society and government. Only in this way, it is held, will the workman be able to obtain an equal share of the material, intellectual, and moral possessions belonging to the whole nation. Collectivism is absolutely rejected by the association. The growth of the "Sillon" into an independent socio-political party, its refusal to be "avant tout catholique" aroused the distrust of some of the bishops. Consequently the clergy held back from it. Nevertheless, the membership did not fall off. The first congress represented 45 members; the second, 300; the third, 800; the fourth, 1100; the fifth, 1500; the sixth, 1896. The "Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages catholiques de France" intended to aid all Catholic societies in honour of a local saint by arranging sports for the members of the patronage has held annual meetings since 1898 when the federation began in a union of 13 patronages; the number is now 450, representing 50,000 young people in all parts of France.

Political Congresses

The "Action libérale populaire", founded by M. Piou on the basis of the Associations Law of 1901, is a political association led by him with much skill and energy. Its task is to defend civil rights derived from the Constitution in all legal ways, to promote reform in law-making by energetic work at elections, to develop or create anew sociological influence and methods, and to improve the lot of the workingman. Only Catholics are members, but it claims that it is not a "Catholic party." Its first general session convened at Paris, December, 1904, with 900 delegates representing 648 comitiés or branches and 150,000 members. The statistics for the following years are as follows: Paris, 1905, 1400 delegates from 1000 comités with 200,000 members; Lyons, 1906, 1600 delegates representing 1500 comités and 225,000 members: Bordeaux, 1907, 1740 comités with 250,000 members. The proceedings of all four congresses were of great interest. The society, conducted by a central committee, is divided into provincial and town committees which, though controlled by the general committee, are allowed much independence of action. Besides assiduous efforts to educate the voter the society has turned its attention more and more to practical sociological work, as the discussions held at the various congresses show. The reactionary methods which so greatly damaged the Monarchists have never been adopted. However, the growth of the association has not equalled expectations, because at the first election which took place after its establishment (1906), while the "Action libérale" did not disappoint its friends, the parties of the Right, without the aid of which it could not succeed, were completely defeated at the polls. Besides, the distrust of many Frenchmen was aroused because in order to gain numerical strength it admitted as members many who, until their reception into its ranks, had been known as opponents of the Republic.

The Women's Movement

The "Ligue patriotique des Françaises", formed in 1901, to collect funds for the election expenses of the candidates of the "Action libérale populaire", aims to arouse interest among women in the efforts of the "Action" to defend civil liberty and to promote sociological activity. Since then the league has declared that it does not pursue political ends. The movement had as its leaders such able women as the Baroness Reille, Mademoiselle Frossard, Mademoiselle de Valette, and others, and in 1908 the league numbered 700 branches with 328,000 members, 28,000 more than in 1906. The league holds numerous district sessions and an annual general meeting. At the last two annual sessions at Lourdes, 2000 women attended. The addresses and discussions at these conventions show that the attention of the league is more and more fixed on attaining practical social ends. This, however, is made more difficult by the mistaken conception that all Catholic Frenchwomen, because they are Catholics, should belong to the league; consequently, the programme lacks definiteness, and many problems are taken up in a hesitating and incomplete manner. Moreover, this policy prevents a correct perception of the sociological character of the organizations in question and their accommodation to the needs of the workingman. They are turned too much into the direction of charitable and benevolent activities. The work of the league in social economics is as yet only in its infancy. The "Jeanne d'Arc" Federation aims to unite all Catholic women of France who take up questions of social betterment, in an annual assembly for exchange of views and combined effort. Since 1901 a well-attended annual meeting has been held at Paris, but so far has resulted only in an interchange of opinion and resolutions. This is due to the fact that the federation has no regular and recognized authority over the manifold associations affiliated in it.

Educational Congresses

Up to 1908 three congresses of French priests had been held: Saint-Quentin, 1895; Reims, 1897; Bourges, 1898. The first, which differed in aims from those following, met at the suggestion of Léon Harmel and confined itself to considering the share the clergy should take in the efforts to better present social conditions. The attendance was about two hundred. The two following congresses called by the Abbé Lemire, supported by the Abbés Dabry, Naudet., Gibier, Lacroix, had an attendance of from six hundred to eight hundred persons. Questions touching the sacerdotal life were discussed: training of the clergy; continuation of clerical studies; activity in the cure of souls; organization to secure a continuous succession of clergy; priests' unions; mutual aid societies, etc. The conventions were presided over by bishops, Leo XIII sent his blessing, and the influence on the younger clergy was excellent. There was much opposition to them, however, on the part of some of the bishops and some of the older clergy, and especially on the part of the Conservatives in politics. The "Congrès de l'Alliance des grands-séminaires" met at Paris, 21-22, July, 1908, the questions taken up were mainly the preparatory training of the clergy in letters and in ascetic life. Conventions of delegates of the teachers of higher and elementary schools not under State control, the "Syndicats et associations de l'enseignement libre", met: at Bordeaux, 1906; Poitiers, 1907; Paris, 1908. At Paris, the delegates represented 2300 teachers belonging to teachers' unions and 3000 not connected with such organizations, from a teaching force of 20,000. Among the subject discussed were pedagogical questions, school-organization, instruction in industrial and high schools, matters of professional interest. The association of Catholic Lawyers has met yearly since 1876, the first session being held at Lyons, that of 1907 at Angers. Those legal questions are taken up which, at the moment, are of practical importance for the continuance of the Church as an organized society, for its endowment sand institutions. The "Alliance des maisons d'éducation chrétienne" aims to secure for independent schools those advantages which a centralized organization confers on those under State control. Up to 1908 the annual sessions were organized by Abbé Ragon, Professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris. The subjects discussed are methods of instruction and school organization. The Alliance originally represented 75 schools; the number rose to 600, but on account of the law of 1901, which reduced the number of schools independent of the State, those in the Alliance fell to 500 in 1908.

Germany

Up to 1908, fifty-five congresses have been held, the last, 1908, at Düsseldorf, those previous met at: Mannheim, 1902; Cologne, 1903; Ratisbon, 1904; Strasburg, 1905; Essen, 1906; Würzburg, 1907. The Central Committee, formed in 1868, superintends the preparations for the sessions and directs the conventions. When the Kulturkampf began the committee was dissolved, and its work was done by Prince Karl Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, the "Standing commissioner of the Catholic Congress". In 1898 a new committee was formed, Count Clemens Droste-Vischering being chairman. The president of the congress changes every year, and the most distinguished representatives of Catholicism in Germany and the leading members of the nobility are regularly selected for the presidency, which office is always held by a layman. On the other hand the chairman of the committee of arrangements is always the bishop of the diocese in which the coming session is to be held. Each congress lasts five days, the meeting being held in August. A number of Catholic societies, especially the Volksverein, founded 1901, the St. Augustine Association for the Development of the Catholic Press, founded 1877, at the second Catholic congress at Würzburg, and the Catholic Students' societies, founded 1867, take advantage of the occasion to hold their own conventions at the same time and place. In addition to the sessions of the General Catholic Congress, in 1850 arrangements were made for diocesan conventions; these, however, seldom meet. Conventions are more common for the various Prussian provinces and the different states of the confederation, e. g. for Silesia, Bavaria, and the last held for Würtemberg at Ulm, 1901. Early in 1904, by order of the Archbishop of Cologne, all the charitable societies and those for social betterment of the diocese were federated, the first convention of this general organization meeting in May, 1904. The first congress of the "Bonifacius Association" was held 8-9 July, 1908, at Paderborn; the object of the society is to collect funds for Catholic churches and schools among Germans scattered abroad, for the Scandinavian mission, and to aid the religious needs of the Catholics.

Social Congresses

General conventions are held of the "Arbeiterwohl" (Society for Bettering the Condition of the Working-Classes); "Society of Catholic Manufacturers and Friends of Workingmen", founded in 1905; and "Society for Social Culture and Communal Betterment", founded 1880 with the aid of Franz Brandts, Hitze, etc. At the last-named general assembly held annually all members can take part in the discussions of the questions brought up. A congress of the "Volksverein" has been held annually since 1890 in connexion with the General Catholic Congress. At these sessions, open to all, annual reports and explanation of the object of the union are given. The president of these annual congresses was generally Franz Brandts of München-Gladbach, and the chief speakers Gröber, Trimborne, and Lieber. Under the direction and leadership of Mgr. Werthmann of Freiburg, Baden, the Association for Charitable Work has met annually as a national assembly since 1896, when it convened at Schwäbisch-Gmünd. The session of 1907 was at Hildesheim, the next, the thirteenth, at Ravensburg. Reports of committees and addresses are alternately made at the sessions. The Congress for Charitable Work came into existence through the sociological activity of the "Volksverein"; its aim being to show that Catholic charities should be more extensively guided by sociological considerations, and that they stand in need of closer union and greater zeal. In 1897 a "Union of Charitable Societies" grew out of this congress; the Union is divided into local and provincial societies under the direction of a well-organized central management which, without interfering with the subordinate organizations, exerts on them a beneficial influence. Especially important are its training courses; the local and provincial societies also frequently bold district and diocesan conventions. A reorganization of the St. Vincent de Paul societies has been broached, the societies for the protection of young girls, and the women's movement have also received encouragement from this charitable organization. The United Catholic Workingmen's Union has its head-quarters at Berlin. Although the greater number of organized Catholic workmen are members of trade unions not denominational in character, an effort has been made, since the end of the nineteenth century, to unite other Catholic workmen in a denominational union. This work has been done chiefly among the East German workmen and in the Diocese of Trier. Conventions of delegates have been held annually since 1898, the eleventh having taken place in 1908. The Union of the Associations of Catholic Wage-earning Women and Girls is a branch of the one just mentioned. Four congresses have been held, the fourth in 1908. The Catholic Association for German Young Men was formed to exert religious influence on boys who have left school and are apprentices until they are prepared to enter a workingmen's union. So far, not over twenty per cent of Catholic apprentices have joined the union. To remedy this it has been proposed to give a more social character to the union, and to form diocesan and a national union, and to convene the presidents of all the branch unions throughout Germany in a general meeting. The first of these general conventions was held in 1896; followed by four others, up to 1899; then the assemblies lapsed until 1905, when, through the efforts of the "Arbeiterwohl" (Society for Bettering the Condition of the Working-Classes) the union was reorganized, and a general meeting held at Cologne. Future sessions are to be held triennially.

The "Association of Catholic Women" was founded at the Congress for Charitable Work held at Frankfort, 1903. Two meetings have been held: Frankfort, 1904; Munich, 1906. Its weakness, so far, has been a lack of definiteness in its aims, for, although an offshoot of the "Charitasverband" (Charitable Union), it has been influenced, more or less, by the general women's movement in Germany and its tendencies, which deal less with sociological problems than with the general interests of the sex. It works for sociological improvement through charity; for the education of women; and in the interests of wage-earning women and women outside of the family circle.

The "Catholic Teachers' Union" in Germany, comprising male teachers of primary and middle schools, was founded in 1899, at Bochum. It numbers 19,000 members, and thirteen conventions, semi-annual as a rule, have been held; latterly it has met at Strasburg, Berlin, and Breslau. The union is made up of sixteen branches which meet, generally, once a year. Würtemberg has formed a union of its own. The "Union of Catholic Women Teachers of Germany", founded in 1885, developed slowly until 1891. Thirteen conventions have been held, the last three in Strasburg, Bochum, and Munich. It is composed of teachers, both of the primary and higher schools for girls; in 1903 it organized a section of the teachers in middle and higher girls' schools which holds special sessions during the meeting of the general convention. The "Union of the Associations of Catholic Merchants", with head-quarters at Essen, founded in 1877, has 20,000 members; its delegates hold a meeting a few days before the General Catholic Congress and at another place. The union of the Catholic Students' Corps who do not wear colours, has held regular annual conventions since 1866, the sessions convened in a different university town each year with the exception of 1906, when Wiesbaden was chosen. Some sixty societies are thus united; as many societies belong to the union of Catholic Students' Corps in which are included also some Swiss and Austrian organizations. The St. Cecilia Society was founded in 1868 to promote interest in Church music. The eighteenth general assembly took place at Eichstätt in 1908.

Political Congresses

As political congresses, up to 1907, should be mentioned the general meetings of the "Windthorstbund", the first session of which was held at Essen, 1895. Their object was to interest young Catholics in politics so as to insure constant recruits for the Centre Party. The membership increasing, it was formed into unions. Since 1897 an annual convention of delegates has met. At Wiesbaden, 1907, it was decided that, in accordance with its statutes and the party it represented, the local unions could not have a denominational character, consequently some of them withdrew from the association.

Educational Congresses

The Association of Catholic Lawyers, held two meetings without achieving success, and was merged, 1907, with the "Görres Association" for the encouragement of science in Catholic Germany, founded 1876, at Coblenz. Since this first general session, the latter society has held annual sessions in other cities. Its importance lies in the discussions of its different sections. At first, these treated topics in philosophy and history, only of late other sections have been added for the natural sciences, law, and archæology. At times, there are two meetings with lectures for larger audiences, which are attended by members and their guests. A general meeting of the "Association for Christian Art" has taken place annually, the object of which is to encourage Catholic artists and develop religious art. The "Catholic Press Club", largely a Bavarian association is intended to encourage Catholic journals, Catholic popular libraries, and Catholic culture. Its annual meetings are held at Munich.

Denmark

In 1886 various Catholic communities, with delegates from Norway and Sweden, united to celebrate the eight-hundredth anniversary of the martyrdom of King Canute (Knut) by a festival at Odense. Some two hundred persons attended, and the exercises were largely religious. In 1889 a meeting was held at Randers to celebrate the seven hundredth anniversary of the canonization of St. Kjeld, the attendance being entirely Danish. In 1908 the Catholics of Copenhagen and its vicinity met to discuss questions concerning the Church and schools for all Denmark. Seven conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul have been held since 1885.

Switzerland

Besides the general assemblies of the nineteenth century mentioned above, two sessions of a General Catholic Congress, in imitation of the German Congress, have been held in Switzerland: Lucerne, 27-29 September, 1903; Freiburg, 22-25 September, 1906. At Lucerne it was resolved to unite all Catholic associations into one organization, of which the Swiss "Volksverein" (People's Union) was to be the nucleus. This arrangement held until 1905. The central committee of the "Volksverein" now forms the standing committee of the Catholic Congresses, and all Catholic societies of Switzerland, charitable, social, and religious, societies to further education, culture, women's, and trades' unions are affiliated with it. The general organization is divided into cantonal unions, of which several meet annually. Special mention should be made of the first Swiss congress of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at Einsiedeln, 20-21 August, 1907. At the suggestion of Bishop Mermillod international conferences of those interested in political movements for social betterment met annually at Freiburg, Switzerland, 1883-93, to discuss the principles underlying modern political economy. A similar meeting was held here, 20-22 October, 1903; the discussions concerned Christian Socialism in the different countries, trade unions, women's work, and the international protection of labourers. Practical courses in sociology were held at: Lucerne, 1896; Zurich, 1898, and 1904; in 1894 a "Congrès d'étude et de propagande" was held at Freiburg for the French Swiss; after this, these assemblies were adopted by the French Catholics.

Austria (including Bohemia)

Up to 1867 the Austrian General Congress formed part of the German Congress; since this date six independent Austrian congresses have met, the last at Vienna, 16-19 November, 1907. The organization is similar to the German, consequently, the annual meetings of various other societies are held at the same time as the important "Pius Verein" for the development of the Catholic press. Besides the General Congress there are various national congresses:

• (1) The first congress for Northern Bohemia was held in 1887; the fourth, 1890; after a long intermission the fifth, 1904; the sixth, 1906.
• (2) The first congress for Lower Austria met, 1894; the second, 1898; the third, 1903; this was followed, 1905, by a meeting of delegates of the Catholic societies of the crown lands; a national assembly was held in 1908.
• (3) The first Slovenian congress was held in 1892; the second, 1900.
• (4) A Czech congress wa held in 1907 with an attendance of about 30,000 persons.

In 1903 the "Union of Catholic Benevolent Societies of the Austrian Empire" was founded; a charity congress met at Vienna, 1901; a second at Graz, 1903; a third at Linz, 1906. The second assembly brought about the formation of the Charity Union for the whole empire. This union includes the benevolent associations of the different crown lands without, however, lessening their independence, and the latter include the individual societies of each part of the empire. Besides the general congress, the imperial organization, in accordance with its statutes, holds semi-annually a convention to which the provincial unions send delegates. During the last decade a number of various other assemblies have been held in Austria, among them a congress for priests, one session; a congress for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin, St. Poelten, 1901; Prague, 1905, etc.

Hungary

Six Catholic congresses have been held in Hungary since 1900, the first at Stuhlweissenburg, the four following at Budapest, the last, 1907, at Fünfkirchen. The language used is Magyar, but the language spoken at the place of meeting receives recognition. The perpetual president is Count Johanni Zichy, Jr., president of the Central Union of the Catholic Societies of Hungary. Up to 1908 the meetings of the congress mainly discussed the press and the needs of Catholic young men. At the last meeting a Catholic Federation, similar to the Volksverein of Germany, was founded. Some of the bishops are greatly interested in the congresses and their results.

Belgium

In Belgium a large number of societies hold conventions, but owing to the many divisions of Catholic associations statistics are not available.

Holland

Each diocese of Holland holds a convention from time to time of all its Catholic organizations; the agricultural associations as well as societies for schools, religious or social purposes, are included, but each society holds its own sessions and also joins in a general meeting of all. The "Sociological Week" has been held three times in the last few years. The bishop of the diocese controls the organization.

Spain

Since 1889 six Catholic congresses have been held, the last in 1903. Lately more attention has been paid to social improvement, especially by means of sociological associations; consequently, the scheme of the Sociological Week is developing. The International Marian Congress met at Lyons, 1900, at Einseideln, 1906, and at Saragossa, Sept., 1908.

Argentina

Up to 1908 two Catholic congresses were held at Buenos Aires, one, 15-30 August, 1884; the other, 20-28 October, 1907. The first aroused great enthusiasm, but the results were meagre. The second had an attendance of about 350 delegates, the president being Dr. Emil Lamarca. Its chief aim was to found a Catholic daily newspaper. Besides this a Catholic Education League was organized to reform the school-laws.

IV. IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

In English-speaking countries the term "congress" is usually applied only to gatherings of an important national character, hence the assemblies in the United States of such bodies as the Federation of Catholic Societies, the Central Verein, the Staats-verbund, the Catholic Young Men's National Union, the Catholic Total Abstinence Union, and other associations are treated under their separate titles.

In England, meetings are held annually of the Catholic Truth Society, founded in 1872 by Cardinal Vaughan, at which paper are read on various subjects connected with Catholic interests. The Catholic Truth Society of Ireland, organized in 1903, has also done excellent work by its conventions and the diffusion of sound Catholic literature in popular form (see TRUTH SOCIETIES, CATHOLIC). Federations for the defence of Catholic interests have been formed in the dioceses of Salford, Westminster, and Leeds. This federation movement has done much to organize the Catholic forces, and has been characterized by the number of popular gatherings which it has promoted especially in connexion with the defence of Catholic education. The Catholic Union of Great Britain which represents an influential body of English Catholics; the Catholic Association, to promote Catholic organization and organizes social gatherings; the Catholic Young Men's Society (founded in 1854); the Catholic Education Council, established by the bishops of Great Britain in 1905; the Conference of Catholic Colleges, founded by Cardinal Vaughan in 1896, and other bodies representing Catholic education hold annual or occasional conventions. Conferences for specific social or religious purposes are held by such bodies as the Catholic Guardians Association (charitable), the League of the Cross (temperance), the Guild of Our Lady of Ransom (conversion of England). Diocesan or local conventions are found especially in London and Lancashire. The Catholics of Birmingham have held an annual reunion for over half a century. Catholic women are being effectively organized by the Catholic Women's League, founded by Miss Fletcher, London, 1907, with branches in the provinces.

The most imposing religious convocation England has seen since pre-Reformation times was the international congress of the Eucharistic League held in London, 9-13 September, 1908. Vincenzo Vannutelli, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina, presided as the legate of the pope — the first occasion on which so exalted a representative of the Holy See had appeared in England since the days of Reginald Pole. France and Germany, as well as all the English-speaking countries, were represented by such a gathering of cardinals as is seldom seen outside of Rome. More than one hundred archbishops, bishops, and mitred abbots, from all parts of the world — even the great missionary fields of Central Africa, Cape Colony, India, Burma, with thousands of the laity, were also in attendance. The religious functions took place in Westminster Cathedral, where, on one of the mornings during the congress, by special permission of the pope, a high Mass according to the Greek Rite was sung.

The United States

There have been two congresses of Catholic laymen held in the United States. In conjunction with the celebration of the centenary of the establishment of the hierarchy of the United States by Pius VII in 1789, and the dedication of the Catholic University, at Washington, the first Catholic Congress of the United States met in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 11 and 12, 1889. The delegates were selected by the bishops of the various dioceses and were in the main representative of a certain percentage of the Catholic population in each. About twelve hundred delegates were present. In preparation for the gathering a meeting had been held in Chicago the previous May attended by Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul and Messrs. Henry J. Spaunhorst, of St. Louis, William J. Onahan, of Chicago, and Henry F. Brownson, of Detroit. The objects proposed for the congress were the closer union of all the members of the Catholic body in the country, increased activity of the laity in aid of the clergy in religious work, and a declaration of views on the important questions of the hour, and for the assistance and relief of the poorer classes of society. Cardinal Gibbons, considering the congress as in some sense part of the religious function taking place at the centenary celebration in Baltimore, deemed it desirable that the papers to be read during its sessions should first be submitted to an advisory committee of the hierarchy and named as such committee: Archbishop Ireland (chairman) and Bishops Gilmour, of Cleveland, Maes of Covington, Ryan, of Buffalo, Harkins, of Providence, and Foley, of Detroit. A committee on Organization, consisting of Messrs. Onahan, Spaunhorst, D. A. Rudd, of Cincinnati, J. D. Keiley, of Brooklyn, and Dr. John Gilmary Shea, the historian, was authorized to issue a call for the congress and to organize it; and a Committee on Papers — Messrs. Brownson, Peter L. Foy, of St. Louis, and M. J. Harson, of Providence — to prepare the work for the several sessions.

Beginning with a solemn pontifical Mass at the cathedral on the morning of 11 November, celebrated by Archbishop Corrigan of New York, and at which Archbishop Gross of Oregon preached, the sessions of the congress were opened in the Concordia Opera House, former Governor John Lee Carroll, of Maryland, presiding. The Most Rev. Archbishop Francesco Satolli, representing the pope, Cardinals Taschereau of Quebec, Gibbons of Baltimore, with representatives of the English and Irish hierarchy, and from Mexico, with many of the bishops of the United States, in addition to the lay delegates, were present. The pope, through Cardinal Rampolla, sent his blessing to the congress, and at the first session addresses were made by Cardinal Gibbons, the Rev. James Nugent of Liverpool, England, Daniel Dougherty, Francis Kernan, Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec, followed by the formal papers of the programme: "Catholic Congresses", by Dr. John Gilmary Shea; "Lay Action of the Church", by Henry F. Brownson; and "The Independence of the Holy See", by Charles J. Bonaparte. On the second day, the first paper, "Archbishop Carroll as a Statesman", was read by Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec, and at its conclusion a formal resolution sending greetings to the people of Quebec was adopted. Mgr. Gadd who represented Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, then tendered the greetings of that prelate and the English hierarchy to the congress, and Peter L. Foy, of St. Louis, read the fourth regular paper, "The New Social Order," which dealt with philanthropic movements in general. Other papers read were "Education: the rights and duties of the State, the Church, and the Parent in that Regard", by Edmund F. Dunne, of Florida; "The Catholic Periodical Press", by George Deering Wolf of Norristown, Pennsylvania; "Societies", by Henry J. Spaunhorst, of St. Louis; "Catholic American Literature", by Condé B. Pallen, of St. Louis; "Temperance", by John H. Campbell, of Philadelphia; "Sunday Observance", by Manly Tello, of Cleveland; "Labour and Capital", by William Richards, of Washington; "What Catholics have Done in the Last Hundred Years", by Richard H. Clarke, of New York; "Church Music", by Heman Allen, of Chicago.

The resolutions adopted rejoiced in the progress of the Church, advocated sound Catholic education, denounced Mormonism, divorce, and secret societies; Nihilism, Socialism, and Communism; commended Catholic charitable, social, and benevolent societies, the support of the Catholic press, Sunday observance; and pledged loyalty and devotion to the pope and demanded the temporal freedom of the Holy See. It was resolved to hold the next congress during the Columbian celebration of 1892, and in the concluding address of the congress Archbishop Ireland said: — "I am overjoyed to see so many laymen, overjoyed to listen to such magnificent discourses and such grand papers, and to have realized that there is among our Catholics in America so much talent, so much strong faith. As one of your bishops I am ashamed of myself that I was not conscious before this of the power existing in the midst of the laity, and that I have not done anything to bring it out. But one thing I will do with God's help. In the future I shall do all I can to bring out this power."

Second Congress

The sessions of the Second Catholic Congress of the United States were held at Chicago on 4, 5, and 6 September, 1893, as incidental to the World's Congresses Auxiliary of the Columbus Exposition and World's Fair of that year. Archbishop Feehan of Chicago and William J. Onahan were president and secretary of the committee on organization, by which it was decided that three topics should be treated during the sessions: "The Social Question as outlined by Leo XIII in his encyclical 'Rerum Novarum", "Catholic Education", and "The Independence of the Holy See". No discussion of the papers was allowed, but each was submitted to its proper section for consideration. Archbishop Feehan opened the congress, and President Bonney, of the World's Congress Auxiliary, welcomed the delegates "on behalf of the World's Exposition and the fifty million non-Catholics who loved justice and religious liberty". Cardinal Gibbons also spoke, and on the second day Archbishop Satolli, who represented the pope at the World's Exposition, greeted the congress in the name of the Holy Father. Other visitors were Archbishop Redwood of Australia, and Count de Kaefstein of Austria. Letters from Cardinals Vaughan and Logue were read.

Judge Morgan J. O'Brien, of New York, presided over the sessions during which these papers were read: "The Relations of the Catholic Church in the Social, Civil, and Political Institutions of the United States", Edgar H. Gans, of Baltimore; "Civil Government and the Catholic Citizen", Walter George Smith, of Philadelphia; "The Independence of the Holy See", Martin P. Morris, of Washington; "Columbus, His Mission and Character", Richard H. Clarke, of New York; "Isabella the Catholic", Mary J. Onahan, of Chicago; "The Colonization of the American Continent", George Parsons Lathrop, of New York; "The Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Condition of Labor", H. C. Semple, of Montgomery, Alabama; "The Rights of Labour and the Duties of Capital", Edward O. Brown, of Chicago, and the Rev. Dr. William Barry of Dorchester, England; "Pauperism, the Cause and the Remedy", Dr. Thomas Dwight, of Boston, and Miss M. T. Elder of New Orleans; "Public and Private Charities", Charles A. Wingerer, of Wheeling, Thomas F. Ring of Boston, R. R. Elliott of Detroit, and the Rev. Francis Maguire of Albany; "Workingmen's Organizations and Societies for Young Men", Warren T. Mosher of Youngstown; "Trade Combinations and Arbitration", Robert M. Douglas, Greensboro; "Temperance", the Rev. James M. Cleary; "Women's Work in Religious Communities", F. M. Edselas; "Women in the Middle Ages", Anna T. Sadlier; "Life Insurance and Pension Funds for Wage Workers", John P. Lauth, of Chicago; "Immigration and Colonization", the Rev. M. J. Callahan, of New York; "The Need of Catholic Colleges", Maurice Francis Egan.

Australia

Two congresses have been held by the Catholics of Australasia, the first at Sydney in September, 1900, and the second at Melbourne in October, 1904. The first congress followed immediately after the dedication of St. Mary's cathedral, Sydney, on 9 September, 1900, at which Cardinal Moran presided, and three archbishops, eight bishops, two hundred priests, with the Governors of New South Wales, Queensland, New Guinea, and a great congregation of the laity were present. The congress received its impetus from Rome, as affording Catholics an opportunity to manifest their faith and devotion at the close of the nineteenth century; to make non-Catholics understand more about their religion; to answer calumnies such as were made current in the Dreyfus case; to urge a reform of divorce laws; and to promote harmonious relations between capital and labour. In opening the congress Cardinal Moran spoke on "The Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century", using the progress of Catholicism in the United States as an illustration. The sessions of the congress, which lasted a week, were held in the cathedral and the topics treated included social questions, Catholic apologetics, education, science, and sacred art, ethnology and statistics, history and the Catholic missions.

The second congress met in Cathedral Hall, Melbourne, 24 to 31 October, 1904, the Most Rev. Thomas J. Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, presiding, and the gathering was made one of the details of the local celebration of the golden jubilee of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Its delegates included bishops, priests, and laymen not only from all the States of the Commonwealth, but also from New Zealand and the islands of the Pacific. The topics discussed in the various sections were Marian and religious: Education, History, and Missions, Charitable Organizations, Social Questions, Sacred Art, Science, Christian Woman, Medical Questions, and the Catholic Newspaper. Perhaps the most practical outcome of the gathering was the establishment of the Catholic Truth Society of Australia.

Souvenir Volume of the Centennial Celebration and Catholic Congress (Detroit, 1889); Benziger's Catholic Family Almanac (New York, 1894); Catholic News (New York); Freeman's Journal (Sydney); Advocate (Melbourne), contemporaneous files; Proceedings of the Second Australasian Catholic Congress (Melbourne, 1894).

MAY, Geschichte der general Versammlungen der katholischen Deutschlands (Cologne, 1904); BRIÜK, Geschichte der katolischen Kirche im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Münster, 1905); Catholic Social Work in Germany in The Dublin Review (London, July, 1908).

MARTIN SPAHN THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Congrua

Congrua (i. e. CONGRUA PORTIO), a canonical term to designate the lowest sum proper for the yearly income of a cleric. It is sometimes used in the same sense as competency (q. v.). Owing to the many charges to which a benefice is liable, it became necessary for the ecclesiastical authority to decree that first and foremost the proper sustenance of the holder of the benefice should be provided for, and that a minimum revenue should be determined, below which his income was not to fall. This was all the more necessary in cases where benefices had been incorporated with monasteries or collegiate churches. Very often the curate of such incorporated benefices received only one-sixteenth of the revenue. To remedy this abuse a number of ordinances were passed which reserved to the person having cure of souls a decent subsistence. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. iv, de Ref.) leaves the determination of the congrua to the judgment of the bishop. This sum must, of course, vary with the fluctuation of values at different times. It must not be so parsimoniously fixed as to provide for the beneficiary the mere necessaries of life. To be a proper income in accordance with the dignity of his state, it should likewise be sufficient to enable him to dispense moderate hospitality and almsgiving and supply himself with books, etc. The Council of Trent did not determine the amount of the congrua. It suggested, however, that about one-third of the revenue of the benefice should be assigned to the vicar. When the benefice can not furnish a proper sustenance, it is the duty of the bishop to see that several benefices be united or that the deficit be made up from other sources, as tithes, collections, etc. If these means fail, the benefice must be suppressed. It is to be noted that in determining the congrua the bishop can not take into consideration emoluments that are uncertain, such as offerings at funerals or marriages, or Mass stipends; nor what the vicar might earn by his labour; nor what he receives from his patrimony; for these are not fruits of the benefice. When the congrua has been fixed for a certain benefice, it is always presumed to be sufficient, unless it be proved to have been lessened. Hence, if the beneficiary declare the congrua to be insufficient, especially when it has sufficed for his predecessors, the burden of proof rests on him. If the congrua had been sufficient at the time a pension was reserved to another from the fruits of the benefice and later became insufficient, the amount necessary to provide proper sustenance must be taken from the pension, for those who have cure of souls are to be preferred to pensioners. Even a curate who is removable and a temporary vicar are to have a congrua assigned to them. Although, in speaking of the congrua, authors generally limit the question to the inferior clergy, yet all rectors of churches, hence also bishops, are entitled to it. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. xiii) declared that a cathedral church whose revenue did not exceed one thousand scudi (about one thousand dollars) should not be burdened with pensions or reservations. The bishop is entitled to an income that will allow him to live according to his dignity. If he have a coadjutor, the ordinary must provide a congrua for him. In many European countries, where church property has passed into the possession of the State, the civil laws have determined the congrua of the clergy more or less liberally. Such laws are yet in force in Austria and Germany, and until the end of 1905 existed in France. The salary for rectors of churches in the United States, fixed by plenary or diocesan synods, has nothing in common with the canonical congrua.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica (Rome, 1886), II; MARTINI, Zur Congrua-Frage in =8Csterreich (Graz, 1883); ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. du Droit Can. (Paris, 1901); VERING, Lehrbuch des kath. orient. und prot. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1893). 424, 647, 793; BUCHBERGER, Kirchl. Handlex. (Munich, 1908), s. v.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING

Congruism

(congrua, suitable, adapted)

Congruism is the term by which theologians denote a theory according to which the efficacy of efficacious grace (see GRACE) is due, at least in part, to the fact that the grace is given in circumstances favourable to its operation, i. e. "congruous" in that sense. The distinction between gratia congrua and gratia incongrua is found in St. Augustine where he speaks of the elect as congruenter vocati (Ad Simplicianum, Bk. I, Q. ii, no. 13). The system known as Congruism was developed by eminent Jesuit theologians at the close of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. All Molinists regard actual grace as being really identified with supernatural action, actual grace of will, technically called inspiration, being an act of will. This act invariably begins necessarily, and may become free at a certain point in its duration; so, however, that, should it become free, there will be no complete break in the individuality, but only a modification of the action; the original necessary motion continuing in a modified form after the point where freedom commences has been reached. An actual grace of will which is merely sufficient never gets beyond this point. Whenever the motion does get beyond and become free, it is called an efficacious grace; the term being applied, not merely to the second stage of the action, wherein it is free, but even to the first stage, wherein it was necessary, with a tendency, however, to continue after the crucial point where freedom begins. This tendency to continue as a free act is found in the grace which remains merely sufficient, in the sense that the second, or free, stage may be, but is not, reached in that case; whereas, in the case of efficacious grace, the second or free stage is actually attained.

Hereupon the question arises: what is the precise reason why, of two motions which may be supposed to be similar in every respect as far as their intrinsic constitution is concerned— be of the same intensity as well as of the same kind— does not last beyond the critical point where freedom begins, whereas the other does? It is of the essence of Molinism that this is due in part to the will itself continuing to act under the Divine grace or not continuing. To which Bellarmine adds that grace which proves efficacious is given by God to one who, He foresees, will use it freely; whereas He foresees no less surely, when giving a grace which remains merely sufficient, that it will not last in the recipient beyond the initial or necessary stage of its duration. Congruism further insists that the motion passes into the free stage when the circumstances are comparatively favourable (congruous) to it; but when they are comparatively adverse (not congruous), it will not continue, at least as a rule. The circumstances are to be deemed favourable or unfavourable not absolutely, but comparatively, that is, in proportion to the intensity of the grace; for it is plain that, no matter how adverse they may be, God can overcome them by a strong impulse of grace such as would not be needed in other less stubborn cases; and, vice versa, very powerful Divine impulses may fail where the temptation to sin is very great. Not that in the necessary stage of the motion there is not sufficient energy, as we may say, to continue, always supposing freedom; or that it is not within the competence of the will, when the crucial point has been reached, to discontinue the motion which is congruous or to continue that which is not so. The will can continue to act or can abstain in either case; as a rule, however, it continues to act when the circumstances are favourable to that precise form and intensity of motion, thereby becoming efficacious; and does not continue when the circumstances are unfavourable, thereby proving a merely sufficient grace.

To anyone who reflects on the way in which the will is influenced by motives it must be obvious that any movement or tendency that may arise towards a particular object, whether good or evil, is more or less likely to continue according as it harmonizes or conflicts with other motions or tendencies towards objects which are incompatible with the first. The whole theory of reflection or meditation is based on this truth. Concomitant states, in sympathy with the motions of grace, make the favourable or congruous circumstances in which these motions operate; just as a tendency towards vice, if accompanied by other appetites favourable to its working, must be deemed congruous or fortunate as regards the circumstances in which it intervenes. Jansenists, Augustinians, Molinists, Determinists, all should and do agree, therefore, in admitting the strengthening influence of a number of confluent motions and, conversely, the weakening effect on any tendency of a simultaneous tendency in an opposite direction. So far all are Congruists; the difference being that whereas Jansenists and Determinists do not admit that the will is free to resist the stronger combination of motives; and while Augustinians proclaim this in words but seem to deny it in reality; all Molinists maintain that the will can effectually cease to tend towards an object, even though it should be proposed as more perfect than what is seen to be incompatible with it; provided always this more perfect object is not presented as absolutely or infinitely perfect in every way. The will is likely to be drawn, and almost invariably is drawn, by the stronger, i. e. more congruous, motive; it is not, however, drawn of necessity, nor even quite invariably, if Molinism is true. In this, which is the only psychologically intelligible sense of Congruism, Molina, Lessius, and all their followers were Congruists just as much as Suarez or Bellarmine.

All true Molinists admit and contend that, antecedently to the concession of grace, whether merely sufficient or efficacious, God knows by scientia media whether it will actually result in the free action for which it is given, or will remain inefficacious though sufficient. All likewise admit and proclaim that a specially benevolent Providence is exercised towards the recipient of grace when, with His knowledge of conditional results, God gives graces which He foresees to be efficacious, rather than others which He foresees would be inefficacious and which He is free to give. Bellarmine (De Gratiâ et Lib. Arbitrio, Bk. I, ch. xii) seems to accuse Molina, unjustly, of not admitting this latter point. Difference of opinion among Molinists is manifested only when they proceed to inquire into the cause of the Divine selection: whether it is due to any antecedent decree of predestination which God means to carry out at all costs, selecting purposely to this end only such graces as He foresees to prove efficacious, and passing over or omitting to select, no less purposely, such as he foresees would be without result if given. Suarez holds that the selection of graces which are foreseen to prove efficacious is consequent on and necessitated by such an antecedent decree, whereby all, and only, those who will actually be saved were infallibly predestined to salvation, and this antecedently to any foreknowledge, whether of their actual or merely conditional correspondence with the graces they may receive. The great body of the theologians of the Society of Jesus, as well as of other followers of Molina, while admitting that individuals, such as St. Paul, may be, and have been, predestined in that way, do not regard it as the only, or even the ordinary, course of Divine Providence. (See PREDESTINATION.)

Though this difference of opinion has really nothing to do with Congruism, it is probably the main reason why Billuart and other opponents of Molinism have maintained that Suarez and Bellarmine differ from Molina and Lessius not merely as regards predestination, but also as regards the nature of efficacious grace; that the opinion of Suarez is the only true Congruism as distinguished from the pure Molinism of the others; and that Congruism in this sense was made obligatory on all the schools of the Society by Acquaviva, the fifth general (1613). The precise bearing of his decree has been rather hotly disputed, Father Schneemann, Cardinal Mazella, and others maintaining that it did not in any way command a departure from the teaching of Molina. Père de Regnon candidly, and rightly, admits that it did; not as regards the nature of efficacious grace but only as regards predestination. (See CONGREGATIO DE AUXILIIS; GRACE; PREDESTINATION; MOLINA; SUAREZ.)

On Congruism proper the best author is probably SUAREZ, De Gratiâ, Bk. V, ch. xxi, nos. 4 sqq.; IDEM, ibid., Appendix Prior, De verâ intelligentiâ, etc.; IDEM, Opusc. I de auxiliis, etc., Bk. III, ch. xiv. Of recent writers see MAZZELLA, De Gratiâ Christi (3rd ed., Rome, 1882), nos. 677 sqq.; CH. PESCH, De Gratiâ (Freiburg, 1897), Prop. xxii; SCHNEEMANN, Controversiarum de Div. Gratiâ, etc. (Freiburg, 1881), sect. 1, no. 16; LAHOUSSE, De Gratiâ Divinâ, nos. 213 sqq.; DE REGNON, Bañez et. Molina (Paris, 1883), Bk. II, sect. 8.— the predestination aspect see FRANZELIN, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1876), Th. lv, lix-lxvi; BILLOT, De Deo (Prato, 1893), pp. 268 sqq.— to whether Congruism is or implies a departure from the principles of Molina, and on the bearing of Acquaviva's decree see on the one side BELLARMINE, De Gratiâ et Lib. Arb., Bk. I, ch. xii, xiii; BILLUART, De Gratiâ, diss. v, art. 2, sect. 3; GRAVESON, )Epistolœ theol.-hist.-polemicœ (Bassano, 1785), Classis I, n. l, pp. 5 sqq.; GAZZANIGA, De Gratiâ, Pt. I, diss. v, ch. ii, no. 110. For the views of the other side see MAZELLA, op. cit., nos. 717 sqq.; SCHIFFINI, De Gratiâ (Freiburg, 1901), IV, no. 275; SCHNEEMANN, Controversiarum, etc., sect. 16; DE REGNON, op. cit., loc. cit.

WALTER McDONALD.

Conimbricenses

(Or Collegium Conimbricenses).

The name by which Jesuits of the University of Coimbra in Portugal were known. On the register of the college at various times appeared the names of two hundred Jesuits including professors and students. Toward the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth, voluminous commentaries on the philosophical writings of Aristotle went forth from the university. These commentaries were dictations to the students by the professors and as such were not intended for publication. Still they were actually published, but fraudulently. In order to interpret and disown incorrect and unauthorized editions, Father Claudius Acquaviva, the General of the Society of Jesus, assigned Father Peter Fonseca, the provincial of the Portuguese province, the task of supervising the revision of these commentaries for publication. Father Fonseca was widely known as the Aristotle of Portugal. The different treatises appeared in the following order:

1. "Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis Stagyritæ" (Coimbra, 1591);
2. "Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo" (Coimbra, 1592);
3. Commentarii etc. in libros meteorum Aristotelis Stagyritæ (Coimbra, 1592);
4. Commentarii etc. in libros Aristotelis qui parva naturalia appelantur (Coimbra, 1592);
5. Commentarii etc. in libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nichomachum aliquot Cursus Conimbricensis disputationes in quibus præcipua quaedam Ethicæ disciplinæ capita continentur (Coimbra, 1595);
6. Commentarii etc. in duos libros Aristotelis de generatione et coruptione" (Coimbra, 1595);
7. Commentarii etc. in tres libros Aristotelis de Animâ (Coimbra, 1592). This treatise was published after the death of Father Emmanuel Golz (whom Father Fonseca had commissioned to publish the earlier volumes by Father Comas Maggalliano (Magalhæns). To it he added a treatise of Father Balthazaar Alvarez "De Animâ Separatâ" and his own work "Tractatio aliquot problematum ad quinque Sensus Spectantium".
8. Commentarii etc. in universam dialecticam nunc primum (ed. Venice, 1606).

To this last treatise was prefixed a forward disowning any connection whatever with the work published at Frankfurt in 1604 and claiming to be the "Commentarii Conimbricenses". The portion of the preface referred to is substantially the following: "Before we could finish the task entrusted to us of editing our Logic, to which we were bound by many promises, certain German publishers fraudulently brought out a work professing to be from us, abounding in errors and inaccuracies which were really their own. They also substituted for our commentaries certain glosses gotten furtively. It is true these writings thrity years previously were the work of one of our professors not indeed intended for publication. They were the fruit of his zeal and he never dreamed they would appear in print. The last treatise was prepared fro printing by Father Sebastian Couto. The entire eight parts formed five qaurto volumes, enjoyed a wide circulation, and appeared in many editions, the best known being those of Lyon, Lisbon, and Colgne. The Commentaries are in flowing Latin and are supplemented by reliable explanations of the text and exhaustive discussion of the system of Aristotle. Karl Werner says that the Jesuits of Coimbra gave the world a masterpiece, whose equal is yet to be seen and which has received the admiration it deserves. Father de Backer gives an exact list of all the editions. The later ones have added the Greek text of Aristotle.

Langhorst in Kirchenlex., s.v.; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II; Braga, Historia da Universidade de Coimbra (Lisbon, 1892-1902).

JOHN J. CASSIDY

Giles de Coninck

(Also called Regius).

Jesuit theologian, b. 20 Dec., 1571, at Bailleul in French Flanders; d. 31 May, 1633, at Louvain. At the age of twenty-one he entered the Society of Jesus. During his course of studies at Louvain he had Lessius among his professors, and became the worthy successor of his illustrious teacher in the chair of scholastic theology, which he held for eighteen years. St. Alphonsus considers Coninck a moral theologian of distinction. Though de Lugo impugned his views on many questions, he is acknowledged to have rendered considerable services to moral theology. His style is concise, clear, and direct: on several points his writings are exhaustive. Coninck's principal works are:

• "Commentariorum ac disputationum in universam doctrinam D. Thomæ", etc. (Antwerp, 1616; enlarged and revised 1619, 1624; Lyons 1619, 1624, 1625, 1643; Rouen, 1630. The last edition was among the Jesuit works condemned to be torn and burnt by an act of parliament of Rouen, 12 Feb., 1762).
• "De Moralitate, naturâ et effectibus actuum supernaturalium". etc. (Antwerp, 1623; Lyons, 1623; Paris, 1624. The author is said to have left very ample additions intended to appear in the subsequent editions of the work. Father Müllendorff assures his readers that this treatise may be recommended to the theologians even of today).
• "Responsio ad dissertationem impugnantem absolutionem moribundi sensibus destituti", etc. (Antwerp, 1625):
• Disputationes theolgicæ" (Antwerp, 1645, published posthumously, though finished twelve years before the author's death).

Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1892), I, 361; Müllendorff in Kirchenlex., III, 947; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, 1369 sq.

A.J. MAAS

Connecticut

This State, comprising an area of substantially 5000 square miles, was one of the thirteen colonies which, in 1776, declared their independence from England. It was among the first to ratify the Federal Constitution under which, in 1789, the republic known as the United States of America established its present form of government. The population enrolled in the census of 1900 was 908,420, and in 1908 undoubtedly exceeded 1,000,000, the increase being in the cities, while the rural communities barely held their own. Manufacturing industries, rather than agricultural or commercial, are the principal resources of the State.

EARLY SETTLERS

The first English settlement was established on the Connecticut River at Windsor by traders from the Plymouth Colony in 1633. In the same year the Dutch from New Amsterdam had sailed up the river and erected a trading house and fort where the city of Hartford now stands, a few miles below Windsor. The Dutch soon after withdrew, leaving the English to establish the first permanent settlements within the boundaries of Connecticut. Saybrook, at the mouth of th Connecticut River, was settled by the English in 1636, and New Haven by colonists from Massachusetts Bay in 1638. In 1664 the New Haven Colony, then comprising the various settlements along the coast, was forced to unite with those in the Connecticut valley, thus forming one commonwealth thereafter known as Connecticut.

On 24 January, 1639, settlers of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield then "cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining" united in the adoption of the first written constitution known in history. The "Fundimental Orders", as they were called, established a Christian commonwealth, and provided for the election of a governor and other magistrates, together with a General Court having both legislative and judicial powers. This General Court consisted of deputies who were to be Freemen elected from the several towns. The towns named above were each to send four deputies, and other towns thereafter added to the jurisdiction were to send such numbers as the court should judge meet, to be reasonably proportioned to the number of Freemen in each town. In 1661 Governor Winthrop was sent to England to petition the king for a charter confirming such privileges and liberties as were necessary for the permanent welfare of the colony. He secured from the reigning sovereign, Charles II, a most liberal charter which remained the organic law of the commonwealth until the adoption of the present State Constitution in 1818, almost half a century after the State had severed its allegiance to the English Crown. This charter conferred upon the people of the colony the right to elect their own governor and other officers, and the largest measure of self-government. It is of interest to note the territorial boundaries of the colony set forth in the charter. It was bounded on the east by Narragansett Bay, on the north by the line of the Massachusetts Plantation, and on the south by the sea. It was to extend to the west in longitude with the line of the Massachusetts Colony to the South Sea "on the west part with the islands there adjoining".

In 1786 Connecticut ceded to the United States all its public land, reserving, however, about three and a half million acres in what is now the State of Ohio. This was known for many years as the "Connecticut Reserve" or "Western Reserve". The legislature granted some five hundred thousand acres of the reservation to the citizens of the towns of Danbury, Fairfield, Norwalk, New London, and Groton to indemnify them for special losses during the War of the Revolution when these towns were burned by the British troops. The grant was afterwards known as the "Fire Lands". In 1795 a committee was appointed to dispose of the reservation. It was sold to a syndicate organized to effect the purchase for $1,200,000. The income from this fund is devoted to the support of common schools, and the State Constitution declares it shall never be directed to any other purpose.

The present Constitution was adopted in 1818. Under its provisions the town is the basis of representation in the lower house of the legislature rather than population. This has brought about, by the growth of the larger cities and towns, a most undemocratic form of government. The cities of New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport, each having a population of more than 100,000, have only two representatives in the lower house, while a large number of towns with a population of less than 1000 have the same number of representatives. In 1902 a constitutional convention was held in the hope that this inequitable system of representation would be corrected. The convention was so constituted, however, as to make any hope of a radical change of the system of representation impossible. The convention numbered 167 delegates, one from each town. The constitution finally proposed by this convention made but a slight change in the basis of representation, and was rejected by the people when submitted for their ratification.

The early settlers of Connecticut were for the most part English of the upper middle class. Their ministers, many of them, had been clergymen of the Established Church who had been deprived of their English livings for non-conformity. Their devoted congregations followed them across the Atlantic and founded the settlement at Massachusetts Bay. From thence came chiefly the first emigrants, attracted by the fertile soil of the Connecticut valley and the sequestered harbours along the Sound. Before the War of the Revolution, however, Ireland had contributed quite a noticeable percentage to the population of the various settlements. This seems to be established from the considerable number of Irish names disclosed in the official military documents of that period. The vast majority of the population, however, remained distinctively English of Puritan origin until the great emigration set in from Ireland, prompted by the disastrous famine in 1846. There is also a considerable German element distributed pretty evenly throughout the State. Since the close of the Civil War French Canadians have come down from the Province of Quebec, and have settled more numerously in the eastern part of the State where they have found employment in the manufacturing towns. More recently the Italians, in large numbers, have located in the cities and larger towns. New Haven, alone, it is estimated, has an Italian population of upwards of 20,000. Russian Jews have also become very numerous, principally in the cities, while Scandinavians, Lithuanians, and Greeks are becoming an increasingly prominent element of the urban population. In common with all the other States of the Atlantic seaboard, while the language and customs of the Anglo-Saxon are still overwhelmingly dominant, the strain of English blood is becoming more and more attenuated with the passing of each decade. In colonial times and during the earlier days of the Republic, Connecticut occupied a place of distinction and commanding influence among her sister commonwealths. At the close of the War of the Revolution she was the eighth in respect to population among the thirteen States that formed the Union, having by the census of 1790, 238,141 souls. She furnished, however, 31,959 soldiers to armies of the Revolution, thus exceeding by 5281 the number furnished by Virginia, then the most populous of all the States, and having at that time more than three times the population of Connecticut. In this respect Connecticut was surpassed only by Massachusetts, which furnished 67,097 soldiers, from a population of 475,257 souls.

RELIGIOUS POLITY

The planters of the Connecticut River towns, in formulating their first constitution in 1639, were all of them Puritans of the sect subsequently known throughout all of the New England States as Congregationalists. The distinctive theory of their ecclesiastical polity regarded each congregation as a self-governing body, with power to formulate its own creed and prescribe its own conditions of membership. They repudiated all allegiance to any central ecclesiastical authority, and the various congregations or churches, as they were then called, were independent and self-governing, bound to each other by ties of fellowship and community of interest, rather than by canons prescribed by any superior ecclesiastical authority. (See CONGREGATIONALISM.) There was from the very first, however, the most intimate relation between the churches and the civil authority. Church membership was an indispensable qualification for civil office, and for the exercise of the rights of Freemen. In the preamble of their first constitution they declared that they were entering into a combination or confederation "to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced among us". Freedom of religious worship, as now understood and demanded everywhere in America, was a principle to which they accorded but scant and reluctant acceptance. For a century and a half Congregationalism was the established religion supported by public taxation. Other Christian sects were merely tolerated. Not until the adoption of the Constitution of 1818 did the principle of true religious freedom receive governmental recognition. It was then declared that it being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, and to render their worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates of their consciences, that no person should by law be compelled to join or support, be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or religious association. It was further declared that every society or denomination of Christians should have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges. Among such powers was specified authority in such denominations to support and maintain ministers or teachers, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of such society only, to be laid by a majority vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting warned and held according to law or in any mariner. It was further provided that any person might separate himself from the society or denomination of Christians to which he belonged by leaving a written notice to that effect with the clerk of the society, and should thereupon cease to be liable for any future expenses incurred by such society. This power of taxation has for many years ceased to be exercised by the constituent societies of any of the denominations, which are now usually maintained by pew rents, voluntary offerings, and the income of specific charitable trusts where such exist.

The observance of Sunday has always been strictly provided for by law. The statutes now in force had their origin about the beginning of the eighteenth century. They forbid any secular business or labour, except works of necessity or mercy, the keeping open of any shop, warehouse, or manufacturing establishment, the exposing of any property for sale, or the engaging in any sport on Sunday, and the person offending may be fined not to exceed fifty dollars. These statutes also provide that any person who is present at any concert of music, dancing, or other public diversion on Sunday, or the evening thereof, may be fined not more than four dollars. The keeping open of saloons and sale of liquor on Sunday is also prohibited under severe penalties. These laws still have public opinion strongly in their favour, and are in consequence pretty generally respected and enforced. Special laws allow the running of railway trains and trolley cars on Sundays during such hours and with such frequency as the State railroad commissioners may, from time to time, prescribe.

All judges and magistrates, clerks of courts, and certain other officials in special cases are empowered by statute to administer oaths. An oath of faithful performance is usually required from the incumbent before entering upon the duties of any public office. Administrators and others when making return of the duties they have performed are required to make oath that the duties have been faithfully performed or that the return they make thereof is true and correct. The ceremonial of the oath universally employed is by raising the right hand in the presence of the magistrate administering it, who recites the statutory form, always beginning with the words "You solemnly swear", and ending with the invocation "So help you God". For many years the statutes have permitted any person having conscientious scruples to affirm in lieu of being sworn. Such persons "solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare", "upon the pains and penalties of perjury". If the authority administering the oath shall have reason to believe that any other ceremony will be more binding upon the conscience of a witness, he may permit or require any other ceremony to e used.

Statutes against blasphemy and profanity have been in existence since the settlement of the colony, and in the seventeenth century these crimes were severely punished. The statutes now in force are traced to legislation of 1642 and 1650, and provide that one who shall blaspheme against God, either person of the Holy Trinity, the Christian religion, or the holy Scriptures, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars and imprisoned not more than one year, and bound to his good behaviour. One who shall use any profane oath or wickedly curse another shall be fined one dollar.

It has always been the custom to open each daily session of both houses of the General Assembly with prayer, and chaplains are appointed by each body whose salaries are fixed by law. It is still the custom to open each term of the Supreme and Superior courts with prayer. The clerk invites some clergyman to perform that office, and pays him an honorarium which is taxed in the regular expenses of the court. The great festival of Christmas received little recognition among the Congregationalists of Connecticut and the other New England States until the latter half of the nineteenth century. Almost from the settlement of the colony it was the custom for the governor to proclaim a day of thanksgiving in the late autumn to be observed as a religious holiday. It was originally intended to be and is still considered as a sort of harvest festival, and has long been esteemed in Connecticut as a day for family reunions and feasting. It was not until Episcopalians or, still later, Catholics became such prominent factors in the population that the 25th of December was declared by statute to be a legal holiday. Good Friday, as such, has never been made a legal holiday. The earlier settlers and their descendants were accustomed to observe a day in the early spring, proclaimed by legal authority as a day of fasting and prayer. For many years now it has been the custom for the governor to select Good Friday for the annual spring fast. Thus Christmas and Good Friday have in recent years received somewhat indirectly the recognition of civil authority. No statutes have been enacted, however, to compel their observance, and the statutes relating to Sunday observance are in no way applicable to these days. No other holy days of the Church are recognized in any manner by the law.

No privilege under the law attaches in any way to communications made to a priest under the seal of confession. As yet such privilege extends only to communications between a lawyer and his client, which the common law of England has always protected. It may be doubted if a law extending such privilege to priests or indeed to clergymen of any denomination could be passed through the legislature as at present constituted. No instance, however, exists, certainly in recent years, where an attempt has been made in any court of justice to compel a priest to disclose any knowledge which came to him through the confessional, and it is quite certain that public opinion would strongly disapprove any such attempt.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS

The statutes of Connecticut contain quite elaborate provisions regulating ecclesiastical societies and the incorporation of churches. Many of those still in force were originally passed when the Congregational denomination was practically the State religion, and its various ecclesiastical societies had power to lay taxes for their support. Originally such a society was distinct from the church, constituting a separate organization. Individuals might be legal members of the society and not members of the church. This condition still remains in many communities, although, as before stated, one may escape liability of taxation by withdrawing from the society. It would be legally possible for an ecclesiastical society to be incorporated under these laws for the purpose of maintaining a church in communion with the Catholic Church. In early times before statutes were enacted for the organization and government of these societies, the several towns had the functions of ecclesiastical societies.

In recent years special statutory provisions have been made for the government of other denominations. Prior to 1866, when a law was passed having special reference to the Catholic Church, the title to most of its property was vested in the bishop and his successors. In that year an act was passed by the legislature providing for the organization of a corporation in connexion with any Catholic church or congregation. Such corporation consists of the bishop and vicar-general of the diocese, the pastor and two laymen of the congregation. The lay members are appointed annually by the ex-officio or clerical members. Such corporation is empowered to hold all property conveyed to it for the purpose of maintaining religious worship according to the doctrine, discipline, and ritual of the Catholic Church, and for the support of the educational or charitable institutions of that church. A restriction exists to the effect that no one incorporated church or congregation may possess an amount of property, except church buildings, parsonages, school-houses, asylums and cemeteries, the annual income of which exceeds three thousand dollars. Such corporation shall at all times be subject to the general laws and discipline of the Catholic Church, and shall hold and enjoy its franchise solely for the purposes above mentioned. Upon a forfeiture of its franchise or surrender of its charter its property vests in the bishop and his successors, in trust for such congregation. This law has in the main worked with entire satisfaction. Property of various religious orders is usually legally vested in a corporation either specially chartered or organized under the general laws of the State where the mother-house of the community is located.

TAX EXEMPTION

In the general statute providing for exemption from taxation are included buildings exclusively occupied as colleges, academies, churches, public school-houses, or infirmaries, and parsonages of any ecclesiastical society to the value of five thousand dollars, while used solely as such. So also are buildings belonging to and used exclusively for scientific, literary, benevolent or ecclesiastical societies. Clergymen are not exempt under the law from liability to perform jury duty or rendering military service. They are, however, rarely if ever found in a jury panel, for the reason that it is not customary to place their names on the lists from which jurors are drawn.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

The laws relating to marriage require that no persons shall be married until one of them under oath shall inform the registrar of the town in which the marriage is to be celebrated of the name, age, colour, occupation, birthplace, residence and condition (whether single, widowed, or divorced) of each. The registrar thereupon issues a certificate that the parties have complied with the provisions of law, which certificate is a license to any person authorized to celebrate marriage, to join them in marriage in that town. No such certificate shall be issued if either party is a minor without the written consent of the parent or guardian of such minor. The person celebrating the marriage is required to certify that fact upon the license, stating the time and place of such marriage, and return the same to the registrar before or during the first week of the month following the marriage. If be fails to do so he is liable to a fine of ten dollars. All judges and justices of the peace and ordained or licensed clergymen belonging to the State or any other State, so long as they continue in the work of the ministry, may join persons in marriage. A clergyman in solemnizing marriage is regarded in the law as a public officer, and his acts in that capacity are prima facie evidence of his character. Any person who attempts to join persons in marriage, knowing that he is not authorized so to do, may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Divorces are granted by the superior court on any of the following grounds: adultery; fraudulent contract; wilful desertion for three years with total neglect of duty; seven years' absence, whereabouts unknown, habitual intemperance; intolerable cruelty; sentence to imprisonment for life, or for any infamous crime involving a violation of conjugal duty punishable by imprisonment in the State's prison. The General Assembly may pass an act dissolving a marriage so far as its civic relation is concerned, but in recent years applications to that body have been regarded with disfavour and are very exceptional. Notwithstanding the fact that the judges have in recent years been increasingly vigilant in requiring strict proof of the facts upon which, under the law, a divorce may be adjudged, the number of divorces has alarmingly increased.

CHARITIES AND EXCISE

The State is well supplied with hospitals and orphan asylums. The former, located in all of the principal cities, are, most of them, controlled by secular corporations, but in Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven, Catholic hospitals have been established in recent years. All hospitals, secular and Catholic, receive liberal annual grants from the State. Several orphan asylums are supported by the charity of non-Catholics, while the St. Francis Asylum, located in New Haven, provides for the needs of the Catholic population. County houses for dependent children who would otherwise have to be committed to the town poorhouses are established by law in each county and supported by public grants.

For many years the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors has been regulated by a law which secures local option to each city and town. On petition of twenty-five legal voters of any town a secret ballot must be held at the next annual election on the question of licence or no licence. Unless the vote is in the affirmative the sale of liquor in that town is absolutely prohibited, except by a public agent for limited purposes of necessity. Licences are granted by the county commissioners. The licence fee in towns of over 3000 inhabitants is $450, and in other towns $250. The business of the licencees is very strictly regulated by law, and their places must be closed from twelve o'clock at night until five the next morning, and on Sundays and all days on which any public election is held.

There is one State prison, located at Wethersfield, a reformatory for boys at Meriden, and an industrial school for girls at Middletown. No reformatory for adult convicts has yet been established in the State, though the matter has received legislative sanction, and the establishment of such a reformatory will doubtless be accomplished.

The statute of wills has been in force from the establishment of the colony. All persons of sound mind above eighteen years of age may dispose of their estate by will. A will must be in writing, subscribed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses, each of them subscribing in his presence.

The common law of public and charitable uses has always been in force in Connecticut. Grants for the "maintenance of the ministry of the Gospel", of schools of learning, the relief of the poor, the maintenance of any cemetery or lot therein, or monuments thereon, are especially declared to be within the law of charitable uses.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

New Haven, the principal city, having a population in 1900 of 108,027, and in 1908 estimated to be upwards of 125,000, is chiefly noted as being the seat of Yale University. The college from which this university has grown was chartered as a collegiate school by the Colonial Assembly in 1701, and first opened at Saybrook a town at the mouth of the Connecticut River. Its promoters were the leading Congregational ministers of the colony, nearly all of whom had been graduated at Harvard College which had been founded at Cambridge by the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in 1636. In 1718 the college was transferred to New Haven where the first building was erected, and where it took the name of Yale College on account of a donation of books and money of the value of about £800, made by Elihu Yale. Yale was born near Boston in 1648, but on his maturity removed to England where he died in 1721, never having returned to the colonies. The declared intention of the founders of the College was to educate young men for the ministry of the Congregational sect, then, and for many years after, the established religion of the colony. It received from time to time substantial grants from the Colonial Assembly, and the only one of its ancient group of buildings still remaining, and recently restored, was erected with funds granted for that purpose by the legislature. In 1715 it received a new charter.

To the original college other faculties and departments have from time to time been added. In 1812 a school of medicine was established; in 1822, theology; in 1824, law; in 1847, a school of science, now known as the Sheffield Scientific School; in 1868, a school of fine arts; in 1894, a department of music, and in 1900, a forest school. These several schools and departments, together with the Peabody Museum of Natural History, founded in 1866, and the Winchester Observatory in 1871, together constitute Yale University. More than 3,000 students are enrolled in all of its departments, and its various faculties number 320 professors and instructors. Its libraries contain about 500,000 volumes. In 1907 its property and funds amounted to nearly nine millions of dollars in value, and it expended in that year more than one million dollars in its operations. Yale has long since ceased to be denominational or sectarian in its character and influence, and has become substantially a secular institution. Upwards of 300 Catholics are numbered among its students, and several among the instructors.

Other colleges in the State are Trinity, established in Hartford, the capital of the State, by the Episcopalians in 1824, which has 200 students, and Wesleyan University at Middletown, chartered in 1831, and under the control of the Methodist Episcopalians. This institution has about 350 students, and thirty-five professors and instructors. There is no State university, as such, although a school of agriculture was established by the State in the town of Mansfield in 1881, upon the bequest of Augustus Storrs. This institution now receives the income of the various grants from the United States to Connecticut for the maintenance of colleges for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts, and is duly incorporated as the Connecticut Agricultural College. It has an enrollment of about 140 students, with twenty-eight professors and instructors. The Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University maintains advanced courses in civil, mechanical, electrical, and mining engineering, which are pursued by large numbers of students.

In the State system of public schools, high schools are maintained in all cities and considerable towns, and district or grammar schools are conveniently accessible to every child in the State. The public schools have a total enrollment of 163,141 pupils, with 4,281 teachers. The total amount expended for the maintenance of these schools, including expenditures for new buildings and repairs, was for the year 1905, $3,795,259. Besides the State schools, good schools of the grammar grade are maintained in most of the larger Catholic parishes. There are 75 of these parochial schools in the State, with 31,877 pupils, and 714 teachers. The teachers are almost exclusively members of various sisterhoods. The establishment of these parochial schools has cost the Catholic population of the State $3,290,700, and the annual cost of their maintenance has reached the sum of $475,355. These schools receive no aid from the State or other public funds.

CHURCH STATISTICS

The See of Hartford was erected 18 September, 1843, with jurisdiction over the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. These States had formerly been included in the Diocese of Boston. The first Bishop of Hartford was the Right Reverend William Taylor, who, with his successors, maintained the episcopal residence in the city of Providence until 1872, when Rhode Island was set apart as the Diocese of Providence, and Bishop McFarland then took up his residence in Hartford. In 1835 a census taken by Bishop Fenwick of Boston found about 720 Catholics in Connecticut, and in 1844 Catholics numbered 4817. In 1890 they had increased to 152,945, outnumbering the communicants of all Protestant denominations by more than 5000. In 1899 the Catholic population in Connecticut exceeded 250,000, and in 1908 had reached 395,354, with a remaining non-Catholic population of 725,000. Neither the coloured nor the Indian races contribute appreciably to this number. For the most part the Catholics of Connecticut are of Irish ancestry, largely augmented by the German, Italian, French Canadian, and Polish immigrations of recent years. Comparatively few trace their ancestry to the early settlers of the colony, and these generally are converts or belong to the families of converts. The number of conversions has been slowly but steadily increasing, but the enormous growth of the Catholic Church in Connecticut is still chiefly due to the great tide of immigration from European countries during the last half-century.

The Congregationalists are the most numerous of the Protestant denominations, having, according to the religious census taken in 1890, 59,154 members. The same census disclosed 26,652 Protestant Episcopalians, 29,411 Methodists, and 22,372 Baptists. It is notable that of Presbyterians, probably in other parts of the United States one of the most numerous of the Protestant bodies, there were in Connecticut at the time of the taking of this census only 1680 communicants.

HOLLISTER, History of Connecticut (New Haven, 1855), II; LIVERMORE, Republic of New Haven (Baltimore, 1886); BARBER, Connecticut Historical Collections (New Haven, 1836); TRUMBULL, History of Connecticut (New London, 1898), II; Colonial Records of Connecticut, eds. TRUMBULL and HOADLEY (Hartford, 1850-1890), XV; New Haven Colonial Records ed. HOADLEY (Hartford, 1857-8), II; O'DONNELL, History of the Diocese of Hartford (Boston, 1900).

JAMES HENRY WEBB

John Connolly

Second Bishop of New York, U.S.A., b. at Slane, Co. Meath, Ireland, 1750; d. New York, 6 February, 1825. He joined the Dominican Order in early youth and was sent to Rome, where, after ordination to the priesthood, he became professor at St. Clement's, theologian of the Minerva, agent of the Irish Bishops, and Prior of St. Clement's. Both Pius VI and Pius VII held him in high esteem. By his influence he saved the Irish, Scotch, and English colleges and his own convent, church, and library from being plundered by the French invaders. He was nominated Bishop of New York as successor to Bishop Concanen, who had desired his appointment in the first instance. He was consecrated in Rome, 6 November, 1814, but did not reach New York until 24 November, 1815. Despite advanced years and untoward circumstances, he did the fruitful work of both bishop and missionary almost to the day of his death. The diocese then included all New York and part of New Jersey, for which there were only four priests. He built several churches, founded an orphan asylum, and introduced the Sisters of Charity. Actively interested in religious progress throughout the country, he advocated the idea of a diocese in every state as the best means of promoting the cause of the Church.

BAYLEY, A Brief Sketch of the Hist. of the Cath. Ch. on the Island of New York (New York, 1853); DE COURCY AND SHEA, History of the Cath. Ch. in the U.S. (New York, 1856); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872), I, 192; Catholic Miscellany (Charleston), files 1824 and 1825 passim.

VICTOR F. O'DANIEL

Pope Conon

Date of birth unknown; d., after a long illness, 21 September, 687. The son, seemingly, of an officer in the Thracesian troop, he was educated in Sicily and ordained priest at Rome. His age, venerable appearance, and simple character caused the clergy and soldiery of Rome, who were in disagreement, to put aside their respective candidates and to elect him as pope. He was consecrated (21 October, 686) after notice of his election had been sent to the Exarch of Ravenna, or after it had been confirmed by him (see BENEDICT I-X, POPES, under BENEDICT II). He received the Irish missionaries, St. Kilian and his companions, consecrated Kilian bishop, and commissioned him and the others to preach the Faith in Franconia. (Vita S. Kiliani, in Canisius, Lect. Antiquæ, III, 175-180.) He was in favour with the savage Emperor Justinian II who informed him that he had recovered the Acts of the Sixth General Council, by which, he wrote, it was his intention to abide. Justinian also remitted certain taxes and dues owing to the imperial exchequer from several papal patrimonies.

Acta SS., 8 July, II, 612 sq.; DUCHESNE ed., Liber Pontificalis, I, 368 sq.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, I, pt. II, 72 sq.

HORACE K. MANN

Conradin of Bornada

(Or CONRADIN OF BRESCIA)

Dominican preacher, b. in the latter part of the fourteenth century; d. at Bologna, 1 November, 1429. His parents, noble and wealthy Brescians, were devoted adherents of the Church in a time of many ills, including the great Western Schism. They gave their son a careful education and sent him, at the age of sixteen, to study civil and canon law at the University of Padua. There for five years amid the perils of the unbridled licence and moral disorders of the times, the youth was conspicuous for both talent and virtue, winning the esteem of his masters and compelling the respect of his fellow-students. He entered the Dominican Order at Padua in 1419, and was speedily found to be a model of religious observance. After his ordination his zeal found fruitful expression in his eloquent preaching. He was made prior of Brescia and shortly afterwards, by appointment of the master general, prior of the convent of St. Dominic at Bologna, where he was to restore strict observance. During a visitation of the black plague he displayed heroic zeal and intrepidity in ministering to the stricken people. Amid political upheavals, when bologna under the influence of the Bentivogli had revolted against papal authority, Conradin took a firm stand against the conduct of the misguided populace. For publishing the papal interdict, which they had incurred but which they had disregarded, he was twice seized and imprisoned, suffering many indignities and cruelties. His courageous bearing and constant mediation finally prevailed, however, and peace was restored. Pope Martin V, in recognition of his services, sought to create him a cardinal, but the humble servant of God resolutely declined the honour. The plague breaking out anew, Conradin fell a victim to his charity and died in the midst of his heroic ministrations. His early biographers generally refer to him as Blessed.

JOHN R. VOLZ

Bl. Conrad of Ascoli

Friar Minor and missionary, b. at Ascoli in the March of Ancona in 1234; d. there, 19 April, 1289. He belonged to the noble family of Milliano and from his earliest years made penance the predominating element of his life. He entered the Order of Friars Minor at Ascoli together with his townsman and lifelong friend, Girolamo d'Ascoli, afterwards minister general, and later pope under the title of Nicholas IV. Having completed his studies at Perugia, Conrad was sent to Rome to teach theology. Later he obtained permission to go to Africa, where he preached with much fruit through the different provinces of Libya and worked numerous miracles. He was recalled from Africa to go on a mission to the King of France, then at war with Spain, and subsequently he became lector of theology at Paris. When not engaged in teaching, Conrad preached to the people or ministered to the sick in hospitals. In 1288 he was summoned to Rome by the new pope, Nicholas IV, who wished to make him cardinal, but Conrad died on the way after reaching his native city, being then fifty-five years of age. Nicholas IV was deeply grieved at the loss of his saintly friend, on whose counsel and zeal he had counted so much, and declared that Conrad's death was a great loss to the Church. The people of Ascoli erected a splendid tomb over the remains of Blessed Conrad. In 1371, when his body was removed to the new church of the Franciscans, it was found incorrupt and gave forth a sweet odour. Pius VI approved the cultus of Blessed Conrad. His feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on 19 April.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conrad of Hochstadt

(CONRAD OF HOSTADEN)

Archbishop of Cologne and Imperial Elector (1238-1261), and son of Count Lothar of Hochstadt and Mathilde of Vianden, date of birth unknown; d. 28 September, 1261. Nothing is known of his early youth. In 1216 he became beneficiary of the parish of Wevelinghoven near Dusseldorf; in 1226 he was canon and, some years later, provost of the cathedral of Cologne. After the death of Henry of Molenark (26 March, 1238) the cathedral chapter elected Conrad Archbishop of Cologne. He received the archiepiscopal insignia from the Emperor Frederic II at Brescia in August of the same year. The following year, 28 October, he was ordained priest and consecrated archbishop by Ludolf of Munster.

During the first few months of his reign the new archbishop was on the side of the emperor in his conflict with Pope Gregory IX, but for unknown reasons went over to the papal party shortly after the emperor's excommunication (12 March, 1239). The whole temporal administration of Conrad was a series of struggles with some neighbouring princes and with the citizens of Cologne, who refused to acknowledge the temporal sovereignty of the archbishop over their city. Conrad was generally victorious, but his often treacherous manner of warfare has left many dark spots on his reputation. When Pope Innocent IV deposed Frederic II (17 July, 1245), it was chiefly due to the influence of Conrad that the pope's candidate, Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia, was elected king, and when Henry died after a short reign of seven months (17 February, 1247), it was again the influence of Conrad that placed the crown on the head of the youthful William of Holland.

In recognition of these services, Pope Innocent made him Apostolic legate in Germany (14 March, 1249), an office which had become vacant by the death of Archbishop Sifrit of Mainz, five days previously. The clergy and laity of Mainz desired to have the powerful Conrad of Cologne as their new archbishop. Conrad seems to have secretly encouraged them, but for diplomatic reasons referred them to the pope, who kindly but firmly refused to place the two most important ecclesiastical provinces of Germany under the power of one man. Shortly after this decision the hitherto friendly relations between Pope Innocent IV and the archbishop ceased, and in April, 1250, the Apostolic legation in Germany was committed to Peter, Bishop of Albano. At the same time began Conrad's estrangement from King William, which finally led to open rebellion. With all the means of a powerful and unscrupulous prince, Conrad attempted to dethrone William and would probably have been successful had not the king's premature death made the intrigues of the archbishop unnecessary. After the death of King William (28 January, 1256), Conrad played an important but despicable role in the election of the new king. For a large sum he sold his vote to Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III of England, and crowned him at Aachen, 17 May, 1257. This was the last important act of Conrad. He is buried in the cathedral of Cologne, of which he laid the corner-stone, 15 August, 1248.

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Leonberg

(Leontorius)

A Cistercian monk and Humanist, b. at Leonberg in Swabia in 1460; d. at Engenthal near Basle after 1520. He took vows at the Cistercian monastery of Maulbronn in the Neckar district, which, unlike most other Cistercian monasteries of those times, was then enjoying its golden age. In 1490 he became secretary to the general of his order. When the German Humanists began to revive the study of the Latin and Greek classics, as Conrad deplored the barbarous Latin in which the scholastic philosophers and theologians of Germany were expounding the doctrine of their great masters, he was in full accord with their endeavours to restore the classical Latinity of the Ciceronian Age. He also, by word and example, encouraged the study of Greek, but was especially attracted by the great Hebrew scholar Reuchlin (d. 1522) who inspired Conrad with his own enthusiasm for the study of Hebrew. Like Reuchlin, his friend and teacher, Conrad was convinced of the necessity of Hebrew for a thorough understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and became one of the few great Hebrew scholars of his time. He was in correspondence with the best writers in sacred and profane literature, and was highly esteemed by the learned men of his period. For a time he appears to have been engaged as proof-reader in the celebrated printing-office of Amerbach at Basle. Besides writing numerous Latin poems, orations, and epistles, he published (Basle, 1506-8) the Latin Bible with the "Postilla" and "Moralitates" of the Oxford Franciscan Nicolas de Lyra, together with the "Additiones" of Paul of Burgos (d. 1435) and the "Replicæ" of Mathias Thoring (d. 1469).

WION, Lignum Vitæ (Venice, 1595), I, 78; HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1907), II, 949; HAGEN, Deutschlands literarische Verhältnisse im Reformations-Zeitalter (Erlangen, 1841), I, 151.

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Marburg

Confessor of Saint Elizabeth of Thuringia and papal inquisitor, b. at or near Marburg, Germany, in the second half of the twelfth century; d. 30 July, 1233. His contemporaries called him Magister, a proof that he had finished the course of studies at some university, perhaps Paris or Bologna. According to the Thuringian court-chaplain Berthold, and Cæsarius of Heisterbach, he was probably a secular priest, therefore neither a Dominican, as Hausrath states, nor a Franciscan, as is asserted by Henke and others. Papal letters and contemporary chroniclers describe Conrad as a man of much ability, large theological learning, great eloquence, ardent zeal in defence of the purity of Catholic Faith, and a severe ascetic. They also agree as to the sternness of his character. He is first heard of as a vigorous preacher of the crusade proclaimed in 1213 by Innocent III. The death of Innocent and the consequent relaxation of interest in the crusade, did not dampen the ardour of Conrad, while, in addition, he was charged with various important commissions. Honorius III authorized him (1219) to adjust the differences of the convent of Nihenburg with the Duke of Saxony and the Count of Askanien. The abbot of Hayna, the provost of St. Stephen, Mainz, and Conrad were appointed in 1227 papal commissioners for the separation of Marburg from the parish of Oberweimar. The synod of Mainz (1225) had issued several decrees for the improvement of the clergy and Conrad was intrusted with their execution; he was also charged with the reform of certain convents, as Nordhausen. In 1232 he describes himself as visitator monasteriorum in Alemanniâ. In the course of these labours Conrad became acquainted with the Landgrave Ludwig of Thuringia and his wife, St. Elizabeth. The prince held Conrad in high esteem, and the latter exercised great influence at the Thuringian court, being authorized by Ludwig to appoint to all ecclesiastical offices in the gift of the landgrave. This power of appointing to ecclesiastical livings was confirmed (12 June, 1227) by Gregory IX (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epistolæ Sæc XIII, ed. Rodenberg, I, 276, n. 361).

In 1225, after the recall of the Franciscan Rodeger, Conrad became the spiritual director and confessor of the pious landgravine. He treated her with the same severity that he used against himself, a procedure in accordance with her own wishes. At times, however, he checked her pious zeal and forbade excessive mortifications. Conrad has been often blamed, quite unjustly, for the direction, in keeping with the custom of the time, which he imparted to the soul of St. Elizabeth. After the death of St. Elizabeth on 19 November, 1231, Conrad was deputed, with the Archbishop of Mainz and the Abbot of Eberbach, to examine witnesses concerning her life and the miracles attributed to her intercession. He also wrote for the process of canonization a short life of St. Elizabeth. In his later years Conrad was very active in Germany as papal inquisitor. The heresies of the Catharists and the Waldenses were spreading throughout the land; to Catharism, in particular, was owing the fantastic sect of the Luciferians (see Michael, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, II, 266). From the beginning fo the thirteenth century the German ecclesiastical authority, in union with the civil power, had proceedeed vigorously against all heresies. The conflict in which Conrad had so large a share was waged according to the medieval views of public right and welfare. The first process in which he took part was that directed against Heinrich Minnike, Provost of Goslar. In 1224 after a trial that lasted two years, Minnike was declared guilty of heresy, delivered to the secular arm, and perished at the stake. In the following years Conrad preached with great vigour against the heretics and was warmly praised and encouraged to greater zeal by Gregory IX in a letter of 1227. The Archbishops of Trier and of Mainz both wrote to the pope in 1231 in praise of the extraordinary activity of Conrad and reported his triumphs over several heretical leaders. Thereupon Pope Gregory conferred on Conrad (11 October, 1231) the extensive authority of papal inquisitor, the first such officer appointed in Germany. At the same time the pope released Conrad from the obligation of following the ordinary canonical procedure (te a cognitionibus causarum habere volumus excusatum) and authorized him to proceed resolutely against heretics as he throught best, but with due observance of the papal decrees on the subject.

In the exercise of this authority, even according to the sympathetic accounts of contemporary annalists, Conrad proved too severe and harsh. His assistants, Conrad Dorso, a Dominican lay brother, and John, a layman, were ignorant fanatics unqualified for such work. Conrad believed too easily the declarations of persons accused of heresy; on the strength of their statements, and without further investigation, others were arrested and treated as heretics. The accused either confessed their guilt and had their heads shaved for penance, or denied their guilt, were delivered as obstinate heretics to the secular arm, and perished at the stake. How great was the number of victims cannot now be ascertained. In western Germany a general panic followed the appearance of this severe judge of heretics, who did not fear to summon before his tribunal powerful nobles, suspected of heresy, among such the Count of Sayn. The count appealed to the Archbishop of Mainz who convened a synod of his suffragans (25 July, 1233), at which King Henry also assisted. Both the bishops and the influential nobles were generally ill-disposed towards Conrad, who was present at the synod, and it was found impossible to prove the charge of heresy against the Count of Sayn. Thereupon Conrad undertook, in the exercise of his papal commission, to preach a crusade against heretic nobles. Shortly afterwards (30 July, 1233) both he and his companion, the Franciscan Gerhard Lutzelkolb, were murdered while returning to Marburg. He was buried in Marburg near St. Elizabeth. Despite the unfavourable action of the synod of Mainz, Gregory IX extended his protection to the memory of the deceased inquisitor and insisted that severe punishment be meted out to his murderers.

Henke, Konrad von Marburg, Beichtvater der hl. Elisabeth und Inquisitor (Marburg, 1861); Hausrath, Der Ketzermeister Konrad von Marburg, in Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1883), 137-233; Beck, Konrad von Marburg, Inquisitor in Deutschland (Breslau, 1871); Kalter, Konrad von Marburg und die Inquisition in Deutschland (Prague, 1882); Michael, Gesch. das deutschen Volkes (Freiburg, 1899), II, 109, 206 sqq.; 318 sqq.; Huyskens, zum 700. Geburtstage der hl. Elisabeth von Thüringen, Studien über die Quell. ihrer Gesch. in Histor. Jahrb. (1907), XXVIII, 499 sqq., 729 sqq.

J.P. Kirsch

Blessed Conrad of Offida

Friar Minor, b. at Offida, a little town in the March of Ancona, c. 1241; d. at Bastia in Umbria, 12 December, 1306. When barely fourteen years old he entered the Order of Friars Minor at Ascoli, and was making rapid progress in the study of sacred sciences, when an internal voice called him to humbler offices of the religious life. He therefore abandoned his studies with the consent of his superiors, and for many years was employed as cook and questor. His superiors subsequently had him ordained and sent him forth to preach. His impassioned sermons touched the hearts of the most hardened. Conrad modelled his life after that of his seraphic father, St. Francis. He was especially zealous for the observance of poverty. During his long religious life he always wore the same habit and always went barefoot, without sandals. The early legend declares that Conrad's guardian angel was the same that had formerly fulfilled this office for St. Francis, and that Blessed Giles came back to earth to teach him the mysteries of contemplation. When Brother Leo, the companion and confessor of St. Francis, was dying, he sent for Conrad and made him the depositary of his writings. Conrad was allied with Angelo Clareno and intimately united with John of La Penna, John of Parma, Peter of John Olivi, Peter of Monticello, and others of the "Spirituals". In 1294 he obtained permission from Celestine V to separate from the main body of the order and found the Celestines by whom the rule of St. Francis was observed in all its purity. When this congregation was suppressed by Boniface VIII, Conrad immediately returned under the authority of the superiors of the order. The letter written in 1295 by Peter of John Olivi to Blessed Conrad in which the legitimacy of Boniface VIII's election is defended, has been edited by Ignatius Jeiler (Historisches Jahrbuch, III, 649). During a course of missions he was giving at Bastia, he passed away at the age of about sixty-five years and was buried in that place. Fifty-six years later his remains were carried off by the Perugians and buried at San Francesco. They now repose beside those of Blessed Giles in the choir of the cathedral at Perugia. Pius VII in 1817 ratified the cultus of Blessed Conrad. His feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on 19 December.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Conrad of Piacenza

Hermit of the Third Order of St. Francis, date of birth uncertain; died at Noto in Sicily, 19 February, 1351. He belonged to one of the noblest families of Piacenza, and having married when he was quite young, led a virtuous and God-fearing life. On one occasion, when he was engaged in his usual pastime of hunting, he ordered his attendants to fire some brushwood in which game had taken refuge. The prevailing wind caused the flames to spread rapidly, and the surrounding fields and forest were soon in a state of conflagration. A mendicant, who happened to be found near the place where the fire had originated, was accused of being the author. He was imprisoned, tried, and condemned to death. As the poor man was being led to execution, Conrad, stricken with remorse, made open confession of his guilt; and in order to repair the damage of which he had been the cause, was obliged to sell all his possessions. Thus reduced to poverty, Conrad retired to a lonely hermitage some distance from Piacenza, while his wife entered the Order of Poor Clares. Later he went to Rome, and thence to Sicily, where for thirty years he lived a most austere and penitential life and worked numerous miracles. He is especially invoked for the cure of hernia. In 1515 Leo X permitted the town of Noto to celebrate his feast, which permission was later extended by Urban VIII to the whole Order of St. Francis. Though bearing the title of saint, Conrad was never formally canonized. His feast is kept in the Franciscan Order on 19 February.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN Chris Cobb

Conrad of Saxony

(Also called CONRADUS SAXO, CONRAD OF BRUNSWICK, or CONRADUS HOLYINGER).

Friar Minor and ascetical writer, date and place of birth uncertain; d. at Bologna in 1279. Holyinger is perhaps his family name. The error has been made by some of confounding Conrad of Saxony with another person of the same name who suffered for the Faith in 1284, whereas it is certain that they were two distinct individuals, though belonging to the same province of the order in Germany. Conrad became provincial minister of the province of Saxony in 1245, and for sixteen years ruled the province with much zeal and prudence. While on his way to the general chapter of 1279, he was attacked with a grievous illness and died at Bologna in the same year.

The writings of Conrad of Saxony include several sermons and the "Speculum Beatæ Mariæ Virginis"; the latter, at times erroneously attributed to St. Bonaventure, has recently been edited by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi. The preface to this excellent edition of the "Speculum" contains a brief sketch of the life of Conrad of Saxony and a critical estimate of his other writings.

Speculum B. M. V. Fr. Conradi a Saxonia (Quaracchi, 1904); Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi, 1887), II, 69, 83.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conrad of Urach

Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina; born about 1180; d. 1227. At an early age he became canon of the church of St. Lambert, the cathedral of Liège. In 1199 he entered the Cistercian monastery of Villers in Belgium, of which he soon became prior and, in 1209, abbot. In 1214 he was chosen Abbot of Clairvaux and, in 1217, Abbot of Cîteaux and general of his order. Pope Honorius III created him cardinal, 8 January, 1219, and charged him with two important legations, one in France (1220-23), to suppress the Albigenses; the other in Germany (1224-26), to preach and arrange the crusade which Frederick II had vowed to undertake. After the death of Honorius III the cardinals agreed to elect him pope, but he refused the dignity. The Cistercians venerate him as Blessed (30 September).

MICHAEL OTT

Conrad of Utrecht

Bishop; born in Swabia at an unknown date; killed at Utrecht, 14 April, 1099. Before becoming bishop he was chamberlain of Archbishop Anno II of Cologne and, for a time, tutor of Prince Henry, the future Emperor Henry IV. When the excommunicated Bishop William of Utrecht died in 1076, the emperor gave the episcopal See of Utrecht to Conrad, who, like his predecessor, sided with Henry IV in his conflicts with Gregory VII, and at the Synod of Brixen in 1080 even condemned the pope as a heretic. The contemporary annalist, Lambert of Hersfeld, calls Conrad a schismatic bishop, unworthy of holding an episcopal see. In a battle with Robert, Count of Flanders, Conrad was defeated, afterwards taken captive and compelled to yield part of South Holland to Robert. This territorial loss of the bishop was compensated by the emperor, who, in 1077, gave him the district of Stavoren in Friesland, and in 1086 added the two other Frisian districts, Ostergau and Westergau. Conrad is the founder and architect of the collegiate church of Notre-Dame at Utrecht. He was assassinated, shortly after completing the Holy Sacrifice, by his Frisian architect whom he had discharged, and who, in the opinion of some, was instigated by a certain nobleman whose domains Conrad held unjustly. He is said to have written the discourse "Pro Imperatore contra Papam", and to have delivered it at the Synod of Gerstungen in 1085. It is inserted by Aventinus (d. 1534) in his "Vita Henrici IV" and by Goldast (d. 1606) in his "Pro Henrico IV imperatore". Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, V, 180, note) is of the opinion that the discourse is falsely attributed to Conrad of Utrecht, and that Aventinus himself is the author.

Ruperti Chronicon in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., VIII, 278.

MICHAEL OTT

Florence Conry

Or Florence Conroy; in Irish Flaithri O'Maolconaire (O'Mulconry).

Archbishop of Tuam, patriot, theologian and founder of the Irish (Franciscan) College of St. Anthony at Louvain, born in Galway, 1560; died at Madrid, 18 Nov., 1629. His early studies were made on the Continent, in the Netherlands, and in Spain; at Salamanca he joined the Franciscans. In 1588 he was appointed provincial of the order in Ireland and as such sailed with the Spanish Armada; we have no details as to the manner of his escape from the disaster which overtook that ill-fated expedition. At all times active in the interest of his native land he was again sent to Ireland, this time by Clement VIII, to aid with counsel and influence the Irish and their Spanish allies during the last struggle of Hugh O'Neill (Tyrone's Rebellion) for the independence of Ireland. After the disaster of Kinsale (1601) he accompanied Hugh Roe O'Donnell (Prince of Tyrconnell) to Spain in the hope of interesting anew the Spanish Court. But the great chieftain soon died at Simancus, being assisted on his death-bed by Father Conry (Four Masters, ad an. 1602) who also accompanied the remains to their last resting place in the Franciscan church at Valladolid. Conry was deeply interested in the welfare of the Irish College at Salamanca (q. v.). When the native Irish chieftains, the Earl of Tyrone (Hugh O'Neill) and the Earl of Tyrconnell (Rory O'Donnell, brother of Hugh Roe), fled from Ireland in 1607, Conry proved a devoted friend in their exile and accompanied them to Rome. For the so-called "Revelations" of Christopher St. Laurence, Baron of Howth, implicating Father Conry and the principal Irish in an imaginary plot to seize Dublin Castle and raise a new rebellion just previous to the "Flight of the Earls" see Meehan (cited below), pp. 67-73. At Rome Father Conry was consecrated Archbishop of Tuam in 1609 by Cardinal Maffeo Barberini (later Urban VIII), always a warm friend of the persecuted Irish Catholics. In 1614 Conry wrote from Vallidolid a vigorous remonstrance to the Catholic members of the Irish parliament for their cowardly adhesion to the Bill of Attainder that deprived of their estates the fugitive Irish earls and their adherents and vested six whole counties of Ulster in the English Crown. Meehan says of this document that it is "stamped in its every line with the impress of a great mind" (Fate and Fortunes of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, Dublin, 1886, 3d ed., pp.262, 395).

In 1616 Archbishop Conry founded at Louvain for Irish Franciscan youth the College of St. Anthony of Pauda, principally with means furnished by Princess Isabella, wife of Archduke Albert, and the daughter of Philip the Second. The archbishop was himself the foremost member of this famous Irish Franciscan house of studies whence came a long line of erudite and virtuous historians and archaeologists (O'Clery, Colgan, Hugh Ward, Francis Walsh, and others: cf. V. DeBuck, "L'archeologie, irlandaise, au couvent de Saint-Antoine de Padoue a Louvain", Paris, 1869), and where the most active Irish printing press on the Continent was long in operation. One of the earliest works of Conry was a translation form Spanish into very pure Irish of a catechism known as "The Mirror of Christian Life", printed at Louvain in 1626, but probably current in manuscript at an earlier date, both in Ireland and among the Irish troops in the Netherlands; this was composed, as he says himself, "out of charity for the souls of the Gael". As Archbishop of Tuam, Conry never took possession of his see, owing to the royal proclamations of 1606, 1614, 1623, commanding all bishops and priests, under the gravest penalties, to quit the kingdom. But he governed Tuam through vicars-general and continued to live principally at St. Anthony's in Louvain, not improbably on the bounty of the King of Spain, as was the case of many Irish ecclesiastics of the time. His influence in Irish matters at the royal court was always considerable; thus, as late as 1618 we find him presenting to the Council of Spain Philip O'Sullivan Beare's "Relation of Ireland and the number of Irish therein", and in the following year his own "Statement of the Severities Practised by England against the Irish Catholics". Like his fellow-Franciscan, Luke Wadding, and Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh, he was ever at the disposition of his exiled countrymen. He communicated (1610) to the Council of Spain, a translation of the original (Irish) statement of one Francis Maguire concerning his observations in the "State of Virginia", between 1608 and 1610, a curious and unique document of the earliest English settlements in the New World and the life and habits of the Indian tribes (Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Boston, 1890, I, 392-99).

Archbishop Conry was a profound scholastic theologian, very learned especially in the writings of St. Augustine, all of whose works he read seven times, while those pertaining to grace he read some twenty times. In the interpretation of the more difficult passages he frequently had recourse to prayer and fasting. At Louvain he sat at the feet of Baius, and was also a friend of Jansenius (died 1638). He had, however, by his own efforts arrived independently at conclusions concerning the teaching of St. Augustine on grace andble character of the sufferings of such unbaptized children. His "Peregrinus Jerichontinus, h. e. de natura humana feliciter instituta, infeliciter lapsa, miserabiter vulnerata, misericorditer restaurata" (ed. Thady MacNamara, Paris, 1641) treats of original sin, the grace of Christ, free will, etc., the "Pilgrim of Jerico" being human nature itself, the robber Satan, the good Samaritan, Our Lord. Hunter says that this edition was owing to Arnauld, and that the same ardent Jansenist is possibly the author of the (Paris, 1645) French version. Conry wrote also other works expository of the teaching and opinions of the great Doctor of Grace, e.g. "de gratia Christi" (Paris, 1646); "De flagellis justorum" (Paris, 1644); "De Augustini sensu circa b. Mariae Virginis conceptionem" (Antwerp, 1619). In 1654 his body was brought back from Madrid and buried in the collegiate chapel of St. Anthony's, near the high altar, where an epitaph by Nicolas Aylmer recorded his virtues, learning and love of country:--

Thomas Darcey Magee says of this patriotic scholar: "He is the leading figure in a class of exiled Catholic churchmen who were of a great service to religion and letters and not seldom powerful allies of their country. From the founding of a college to the composition of a catechism he shrank from no labour that could, according to his convictions, benefit the people of his native land."

Ware-Harris, Writers of Ireland (Dublin, 1739-45), Rapin, Hist. du Jansenisme ed. Domenech (Paris, 1861); Hurter, Nomenclator, 253; Meehan, The Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel, their Flight from Ireland and Death in the Exile (Dublin, 1886); Harold, Life of Luke Wadding, preface to the Epitome Annalium (Rome, 1662); Renehan, Collections of Irish Church History (Dublin, 1861), I, 399, 400; O'Cleary, Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, ed. Murphy (Dublin, 1895), cxlv, cxlix, cliii; Jeiler in Kirchenlex., III, 949; Moran, Spicilegium, Ossorience (Dublin, 1874-85), I, 162; Magee, Lives of the Irish Writers of the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 1848), 13-24.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Ercole Consalvi

Cardinal and statesman, b. in Rome, 8 June, 1757; d. there, 24 January, 1824.

Family

His ancestors belonged to the noble family of the Brunacci in Pisa, one of whom settled in the town of Toscanella in the Papal States about the middle of the seventeenth century. The grandfather of the cardinal, Gregorio Brunacci, inherited from Ercole Consalvi of Rome a large fortune on condition of taking the name and arms of the Consalvi family. In this way Gregorio Brunacci became Marchese Gregorio Consalvi, with residence in Rome.

Education (1766-1782)

At the age of nine, Ercole Consalvi was placed in the college of the Scolopii or Brothers of the Pious Schools at Urbino, where he remained from 1766 to 1771. From 1771 to 1776 he was in the seminary of Frascati, where he finished his studies in rhetoric, philosophy and theology; it was there also that he gained the powerful protection of the Cardinal, Duke of York, Bishop of Frascati. The years from 1776 to 1782 were devoted to the studies of jurisprudence and ecclesiastical history in the Academia Ecclesiastica of Rome, where he had among other professors the Jesuit scholar, Zaccaria.

Service under Pius VI (1783-1799)

He then entered on his public career. Named private chamberlain by Pius VI in April, 1783, in 1786 he was made Ponente del buon governo, i.e. member of a congregation charged with the direction of municipal affairs. Appointed in 1787 secretary of the congregation commissioned to administer the Ospizio of San Michele a Ripa, in 1790 he became Votante di Segnatura, or member of a high court of appeals, and in 1792 obtained the nomination of Uditore di Rota, or member of the high court of justice. He was made assessor in 1796 of a military commission established by Pius VI for the purpose of preventing revolutionary disturbances and intervention of the French Directory in the Papal States. In this latter capacity he accomplished his work with such tact, prudence, and foresight that no serious troubles arose, which could have served as an excuse for an invasion of Rome by the armies of the French Republic.

Unfortunately on 28 December, 1797, the French general Duphot was killed in Rome; he was himself largely to blame, and the event took place without the slightest fault of the Papal Government. Still it was used as a pretext for the occupation of the city. On 10 February, 1798, General Berthier entered Rome with an army, and five days afterwards the pope was deprived of his temporal sovereignty, and a Roman republic proclaimed. Consalvi, having been assessor of the military commission, was placed first on the list of those who were to be handed over to the French Government. He was arrested, imprisoned in the fortress of Sant' Angelo, sent to Civitavecchia en route to Cayenne, French Guiana, brought back to the castle of Sant' Angelo, and then sent to Terracina, whence he was finally permitted to repair to Naples.

Consalvi thus recovered his personal liberty; but he disliked to remain in Naples, and wished rather to join Pius VI, who shortly after the occupation of Rome was taken from his capital and held a captive in a Carthusian monastery near Florence. Having obtained permission from the Neapolitan Government, he went by sea to Leghorn and thence to Florence, where he made two visits to the pope; his wish to remain with the pontiff was frustrated by the French envoy at Florence. Towards the end of September, 1798, he took up his residence in Venice.

Service under Pius VII (1799-1823)

After the death of Pius VI at Valence in France, 29 August, 1799, the cardinals assembled in Venice for the conclave, and Consalvi was chosen secretary by an almost unanimous vote. He had a large share in securing the election of Cardinal Chiaramonti, Bishop of Imola (14 March, 1800). The new pope, Pius VII (1800-23), soon appointed Consalvi pro-secretary of state; and thus Consalvi accompanied the pope to Rome, where they arrived 3 July, 1800. Shortly before, the pope had recovered possession of the Papal States, which were then partly under the control of Austria and partly under that of Naples.

On 11 August, 1800, Consalvi was made cardinal and appointed definitively secretary of state. In this capacity he first endeavoured to restore better conditions in the Papal States. He abolished the custom of furnishing food to the people at low prices, introduced free trade, withdrew from circulation all depreciated money, and admitted a large number of laymen to Government offices. He did much to embellish Rome and to make it an art-centre by designing public promenades along the Tiber, restoring the ancient monuments, and filling the museums with statues unearthed by excavations made under his direction.

In his negotiations with the various courts or Governments of Europe he was ever watchful in safeguarding the interests of the Holy See, both temporal and spiritual, the latter especially, in which the pope as the head of Christendom was primarily concerned. In this respect he rendered an incalculable service to religion in signing the French Concordat. The negotiations commenced for that purpose by Monsignor Spina, Archbishop of Corinth, and Father Caselli, former Superior General of the Servites, seemed to lag; in order not to interrupt them completely Consalvi was sent to Paris in June, 1801. Long and painful discussions followed with Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of the French Republic, or his commissioners, until finally, on the 15th of July, the Concordat was signed by the papal and the French commissioners, and afterwards ratified by the pope and the French Government.

Consalvi left immediately for Rome, where he arrived on the 6th of August. With what are known as the "Organic Articles", added by the French Government to the Concordat, Consalvi had nothing to do; on the contrary he condemned them unequivocally as destructive of the Concordat, of which they pretended to be commentaries. He was also prominent in the negotiations that preceded the Italian Concordat, concluded with the Cisalpine Republic on the 16th of September, 1803.

When Napoleon was proclaimed emperor in 1804, Consalvi urged Pius VII to accept Bonaparte's invitation to crown him as the new sovereign of France and during the pope's absence (November, 1804, to May, 1805) Consalvi acted as his representative to the entire satisfaction of his master. When the discussions between Napoleon and Pius VII commenced, Consalvi was blamed for the refusal of the pope to consider himself a vassal of the French emperor. The suspicions of Napoleon were confided to Cardinal Fesch, then French ambassador at Rome; and the dismissal of Consalvi was insisted upon. Consalvi, hoping to secure peace for his master, asked repeatedly to be relieved; but only after long hesitation did the pope consent to the demand. Consalvi left the secretariate of state on 17 June, 1806, but was often consulted privately on matters of importance.

The imperial persecution of the pope reached its climax with the annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire (20 June, 1809) and the deportation of the pope to Savona during the night of 5-6 July. Consalvi was forced to depart from Rome, 10 December following; in company with Cardinal di Pietro he journeyed to Paris, where he arrived 20 February, 1810. There he lived in retirement as much as possible, and refused a pension of 30,000 francs assigned to him by the French Government.

On the occasion of Napoleon's marriage to the Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, Consalvi with twelve other cardinals declined to assist at the civil and religious ceremony, held 1-2 April, 1810, though he was present at the semi-solemn reception at Saint-Cloud, 31 March, and went also to the Tuileries in Paris for the great reception, on 3 April. He did not wish to appear as approving the second marriage of Napoleon, as long as the pope had not pronounced on the validity of the first. Napoleon was so incensed at his action, that he expelled him with the other cardinals of like sentiments from the Tuileries on 3 April, and in the first moment of passion gave orders to have him shot. However, he modified his rash judgment and decreed that Consalvi and the twelve other cardinals should be deprived of their property and of their cardinalitial dignity. From that moment these princes of the Church were compelled to wear black garments, whence their name of "black cardinals", and on 11 June they were all banished to various cities of France. Consalvi was sent to Reims; it was there in his enforced retirement that he wrote his memoirs.

Set free on 26 January, 1813, he hastened to Pius VII, then at Fontainebleau. At his suggestion the pope retracted (24 March) the concessions made to Napoleon in a Brief from Savona and in a new concordat agreed upon at Fontainebleau; as a consequence Consalvi was restricted in his free intercourse with the pope. When Pius VII left Fontainebleau for Italy (23 January, 1814) Consalvi followed a few days afterwards, at first under a military escort as far as Beziers. Having heard of Napoleon's abdication in Fontainebleau (11 April, 1814) he asked for a passport and rejoined Pius VII in Italy. He was at once reappointed secretary of state by papal letter written from Foligno, 19 May, 1814.

Before taking office Consalvi went to Paris for the purpose of claming from the allied Powers of Europe the restoration of the Papal States under the sovereignty of the pope. With the same object in view he went also to England, and assisted afterwards at the Congress of Vienna (September, 1814, to June, 1815). He was successful in his negotiations, and obtained the restitution of all papal territory such as it had been before the French Revolution, with the exception of Avignon, Venaissin, and a small strip of land in the legation of Ferrara.

After his return to Rome Consalvi continued to work for the welfare of the Papal States and of the Church. He abolished the ancient privileges of the nobility and of the papal cities, devised a new plan of administration for the papal territory, readjusted the finances, prepared a new civil and criminal code of laws, reorganized the system of education, and provided for public safety. He continued the elaboration of his plans for the embellishment of Rome and the improvement of the Campagna; he endeavoured, as already said, to make Rome a centre of art, and extended his protection to such famous artists as Canova and Thorwaldsen. At the same time he maintained with firmness the rights and sovereignty of the pope.

When in 1817 the Carbonari tried to bring about a rebellion, a few of their leaders were prosecuted, banished, or imprisoned; and in 1821 a Bull was issued against these disturbers. During this period several concordats or similar agreements were concluded with foreign Powers: with Bavaria in 1817, with Prussia and the princes of the Upper Rhine in 1821, with Hanover in 1823, with Victor Emmanuel of Sardinia in 1817, with King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies in 1818. The French Concordat concluded in 1817 with King Louis XVIII never received legal force in France; hence that of 1801 continued in existence.

Retirement and Death (1823-1824)

The career of Consalvi came to an end with the death of Pius VII (20 August, 1823). After his retirement his thoughts were devoted to the erection of a monument at St. Peter's in honour of his former master; only a few months afterwards he was carried himself to his tomb in San Lorenzo, while his heart was taken to the Pantheon. Appropriate monuments were erected to his memory in both places.

Appreciation

Ercole Consalvi is to be regarded as one of the greatest statesmen who has ever served the papal court; his eminent qualities were at all times apparent during the great trials of the papacy. If not always successful in his enterprises, it was largely because of the scarcity of means at his disposal and the prejudices of his age. The purity of his life was the more admired because in his position he had to mingle much with a worldly society. He was devoted to works of charity and religion; the poor knew him as their friend, and in his exercises of devotion he was most punctual.

Finally he was very unselfish and disinterested. He served the pope and the Church loyally without looking for personal advantage. He never asked for a position, except for that of Uditore di Rota, which appeared desirable owing to the studies he had made and the great opportunities it offered for travelling during the vacation months. The many gifts, pensions, or legacies, offered him, and at times persistently, by friends, admirers, and patrons, were invariably declined. All in all, both for the work he accomplished and for his personal character, Consalvi is one of the purest glories of the Church of Rome.

CRÉTINEAU-JOLY, Mémoires du Cardinal Consalvi, ed. DROCHON (Paris, 1895); WISEMAN, Recollections of the Last Four Popes (London, 1858); RINIERI, La diplomazia pontificia nelsecolo XIX (Rome, 1902); IDEM, Il congresso di Vienna e la Santa Sede (Rome, 1904); THEINER, Histoire des deux concordate (Paris, 1869); ARTAUD, Histoire du Pape Pie VII (Paris, 1837); WERNER in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg, 1884), s.v.; NIELSEN in Realencyk. f. prof. Theol., s.v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive. The term consanguinity here means, within certain limitations defined by the law of nature, the positive law of God, or the supreme authority of State or Church, the blood-relationship (cognatio naturalis), or the natural bond between persons descended from the same stock. In view of the recognized descent of all men from one common stock, there is a general blood-relationship between all men; hence the limitation mentioned has reference to the nearest root or source of consanguinity. This bond or union of blood takes place in one case through the descent of one person from the other; this is called the direct line. In another case it takes place because the common blood is drawn from a common root, the same ancestor, from whom both persons descend, though they do not descend one from the other, and are therefore not in a direct but in a transverse or collateral line. By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.

HISTORY OF IMPEDIMENT

Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve, it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature; otherwise the propagation of the human race would have begun by violation of the natural law. It is readily understood that, considering the freedom of intercourse between such persons, some effort would soon be made (in the interest of the social welfare) to prevent early corruption within the close family circle by placing a bar to the hope of marriage. Hence among all peoples there has arisen a natural repugnance to the marriage of brother and sister. Some theologians suppose herein a positive Divine law, but it is not easy to point out any such early Divine enactment. Abraham married Sarah who was his sister by his father, though of a different mother (Gen., xi; cf. Gen. xx, 12). Marriage was allowed at Athens with half-sisters by the same father (Plutarch, Cim., iv; Themist., xxxii), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Philo, De Special. Leg., tr. Yonge, III, 306), and with full-sisters in Egypt (Diodorus Siculus, I, 27) and Persia, as illustrated in the well-known instances of the Ptolemies in the former, and of Cambyses in the latter, country (Herodian, III, 31). For a good summary of non-Christian customs in this respect see Melody, "Marriage of Near Kin" in "Catholic University Bulletin" (Washington, Jan., 1903, pp. 40-60).

In the earlier history of the human race there was a tendency in a family group to keep marriages of its members within the group. Of this we have examples in the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca (Gen., xxiv) and Jacob and Lia-Rachel (ibid., xxix). We know from Exodus, vi, 20, that Amram took Jochabed, his father's sister, to wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses. The Mosaic Law, however, introduced important modifications into the arrangements of marriage or carnal intercourse between near relations by blood as also by affinity; these modifications were founded mainly upon the sharpened instincts of human nature and the importance of guarding against the dangers of corruption from the intimacy of very near relations, which prompted the cutting off all hope of covering past impurity by subsequent marriage. Undoubtedly this danger increased the instinctive natural repugnance to marriage between those connected by the closest ties of blood and family affection. These prohibitions relating to consanguinity, between a man and the "flesh of his flesh", are contained mainly in Lev., xviii, 7-13, and xx, 17, 19. Specific prohibitions are here made with regard to marriage or carnal intercourse with a mother, granddaughter, aunt by blood on either side, sister, or half-sister, whether "born at home or abroad". This expression has generally been understood as equivalent to "in or out of wedlock". Yet, as late as David's time, the language of Thamar towards her half-brother Amnon (II K., xiii, 13) seems to imply the possibility of their union with consent of their father, perhaps because he was also king (for a contrary opinion see Wernz, Jus. Decretalium, Rome, 1894, II, 634). Some theologians held the daughters of Lot (Gen., xix, 30-38) somewhat excusable because they thought that the human race had been swallowed up by fire, and could be continued through their father alone (Kenrick, De Imped. Matr., ch. v, p. 318).

In early Roman times marriage of cousins was not allowed, though it was not infrequent after the Second Punic War. Marriage between uncle and niece was unlawful among Romans. Consanguinity in the direct line, to any extent, was recognized by the Church as an impediment to marriage. Worthy of notice is the declaration by Nicholas I (858-67) in his letter to the Bulgarians, that "between those persons who are related as parents and children marriage cannot be contracted, as between father and daughter, grandfather and granddaughter, or mother and son, grandmother and grandson, and so on indefinitely". Billuart, however, calls attention to the fact that Innocent III, without distinction of lines, allows indiscriminately infidels converted to Christianity to retain their wives who are blood-relations in the second degree. Other theologians take it for granted that this declaration of Innocent III has no reference to the direct line. In the early ages the Church accepted the collateral degrees put forward by the State as an impediment to marriage. St. Ambrose (Ep. lx in P. L., XVI, 1185) and St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XV, xvi) approved the law of Theodosius which forbade (c. 384) the marriage of cousins. This law was retained in the Western Church, though it was revoked (400), at least in the East, by Arcadius, for which reason, doubtless, the text of the law has been lost. The Code of Justinian permitted the marriage of first cousins (consobrini), but the Greek Church in 692 (Second Trullan Synod, can. liv) condemned such marriages, and, according to Balsamon, even those of second cousins (sobrini).

This discipline continued throughout the Church till the eighth century. We then meet with the canon (c. 16, C. 55, q. 2), attributed to various popes and embodied in a letter of Gregory III (732), which forbids marriage among the Germans to the seventh degree of consanguinity. Wernz (Jus Decretal., IV, p. 624), says that at this date so severe a prohibition cannot be based on the canonical computation, but rather on that of the Roman law; it is, therefore, no proof of so early an acceptance by the Church of the Germanic computation. For a fuller exposition of the theory that the canonical computation is borrowed from the Germanic system see Von Scherer, "Handbuch des Kirchenrechts" (Graz, 1898), II, 291, and the excellent exposé of Wernz, "Jus Decretalium", IV, 616-25, especially p. 621, where he sets forth with moderation both the free and original action of the Church in establishing the degrees within which it was forbidden relations to marry and her natural tendency, so often exhibited in other matters, to accept whatever was good or useful in the manners and institutions of newly converted peoples. Von Scherer calls attention (op. cit., II, 296-9) to the influence of the ninth-century Pseudo-Isidore (and the canonical collections based on him, e. g. the "Decretum" of Burchard) in familiarizing the West with the Germanic computation, and says that it does not appear in any genuine papal decretals before Alexander II, and that its exact character is not yet thoroughly ascertained. The Roman canonist De Angelis (Prælectiones Jur. Can., Bk. III, tit. xiv) holds rightly that the computation of degrees was originally the same as that of the Roman civil law for inheritance. He states that in the eleventh century Alexander II (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5) adopted the now usual system of computation, which established for collateral consanguinity the principle that persons were remote from one another by as many degrees as they are remote from the common stock, omitting the common stock (Wernz, however, op. cit., IV, 623, believes that this system, de facto the Germanic computation was adopted at some earlier period, though doubtless not so early as Gasparri maintains). In this way the degrees of relationship were determined by the number of generations on one side only; while in the Roman civil system the number of degrees resulted from the sum of the generations on both sides. In the Roman system (computatio Romana civilis) first cousins would be in the fourth degree, while in the new computation they would be in the second degree of consanguinity. This, as is seen, would extend the impediment of consanguinity.

Some have called the new computation Germanic (computatio Germanica) because it has a similarity to the peculiar Germanic system of determining inheritance, and whose technical terms were borrowed from the seven joints of the body (on both sides) from the neck to the finger-tips. But Santi-Leitner calls attention (ed. 1905, III, 241, against Gasparri) to various discrepancies between the ecclesiastical (computatio canonica) and the Germanic systems which often led the newly-converted Franks and other Germans to oppose the system of the Church. The latter system was more directly connected with the natural relations of marriage, and Alexander II (1061-73) treated it as peculiarly ecclesiastical law (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5) and threatened severely all advocates of a return to the Roman, or civil, calculation. The reception and extension of this severe discipline regarding the impediment of consanguinity came about gradually and by custom, says Wernz, from the sixth and seventh centuries (when first the third and then the fourth degree, i. e. respectively second and third cousins was the limit) to the eleventh and twelfth centuries; in the eleventh century the controversy of St. Peter Damian ("De parentelæ gradibus" in P. L., XLIV, 191 sqq.) with the Roman legists of Ravenna, decided in his favour by Alexander II, helped to fix the popular view in the sense of extreme strictness. It is, however, doubtful whether the sixth and seventh degrees of consanguinity were ever a diriment impediment, at least everywhere. It is not improbable that even the fifth was only a preventive impediment (Wernz, op. cit., IV, 626). While in the twelfth century the theory of the remote degrees was strictly maintained by canonists, councils, and popes, in practice marriages ignorantly contracted within them were healed by dispensation or dissimulation (Wernz, loc. cit.). Finally, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Innocent III restricted consanguinity as a diriment impediment to the fourth degree. He explains that it was found difficult to carry out the extension to further degrees. in those days of imperfect registration it was, of course, often impossible to ascertain the distant degrees of relationship. (For a defence of his illustrative reference to the current theory of the "four bodily humours", borrowed from the ancient physiology, see Santi-Leitner, op. cit. III, 248; cf. Wernz, op. cit., IV, 629.)

Gregory I (590-604), if the letter in question be truly his, granted to the newly converted Anglo-Saxons restriction of the impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity (c. 20, C. 35, qq. 2, 3); Paul III restricted it to the second degree for American Indians (Zitelli, Apparat. Jur. Eccl., 405), and also for natives of the Philippines. Benedict XIV (Letter "Æstas Anni", 11 Oct., 1757) states that the Roman pontiffs have never granted dispensation from the first degree of collateral consanguinity (brothers and sisters). For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity. (For further details of the history of ecclesiastical legislation concerning this impediment see Esmein, "Le mariage en droit canonique", Paris, 1891, I, 335-56; II, 258, 345; Santi-Leitner, op. cit. below, 247-48; and Wernz, "Jus Decretal", II, 614 sqq.)

MOTIVES OF IMPEDIMENT

The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XV, xvi) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. cliv, a. 9; St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XV, x). Nature itself seemed to abhor the marriage of close kin, since such unions are often childless and their offspring seem subject to grave physical and mental weakness (epilepsy, deaf-muteness, weak eyes, nervous diseases), and incur easily and transmit the defects, physical or moral, of their parents, especially when the interbreeding of blood-relations is repeated (Santi-Leitner, op. cit., IV, 252; Huth, "The Marriage of Near Kin, considered with respect to the Law of Nations, the results of Experience and the teachings of Biology", London, 1875; Surbled, "La morale dans ses rapports avec la médecine et l'hygiène", Paris, 1892, II, 245-55; Eschbach, "Disputat. physiologico-theolog.", 99 sqq.; Luckock, "The History of Marriage, Jewish and Christian, in relation to divorce and certain forbidden degrees", London, 1894; Esmein, "Le mariage en droit canonique", Paris, 1891, I, 337, sqq.; see also Wernz, op. cit. IV, 686-37, and the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, 22 Nov., 1836).

MODE OF CALCULATION

In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined.

In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e. g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the collateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, that is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. Children of the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage.

For civil effects the civil law's computation of degrees must be known. In most European countries the law follows mainly the computation of the Roman civil law. In England, since the Reformation, the Levitical law has been recognized as the standard by which to determine the prohibitions of marriage. For Catholics everywhere, as Alexander II decreed (c. 2, C. 35, q. 5), the ecclesiastical calculation (computatio canonica) must be followed for the direct question of the lawfulness of marriage. Clement V, in the Council of Vienne (1311), decreed that any one who knowingly contracted marriage within the forbidden degrees should by the fact incur excommunication, though not reserved; this penalty has ceased since the Bull "Apostolicæ Sedis" of Pius IX (1869). The Council of Trent (1563) required the absolute separation of those who knowingly contracted marriage within the prohibited degrees, and denied all hope of obtaining a dispensation, especially if the attempted marriage had been consummated. But in this regard the practice of the Church, probably on account of the recognition of such marriages by the State, and the consequent difficulty of enforcing the dissolution of illicit unions, has tended towards greater leniency. The Council of Trent, it is true (Sess. XXIV, c. v, De ref., matr.), made no changes in the existing legislation, despite the wishes of many for a reduction of the limits of the impediment (Theiner, Acta Conc. Trid., Leipzig, 1874, 336, 342). Such reduction would in all probability have been discussed at the Vatican Council (1870), had it not been interrupted (Lämmer, Zur Codification des can. Rechts, Freiburg, 1899, 137, sqq., and Martin, Coll. docum. Conc. Vat., p. 162 sqq.).

In the Uniat Eastern Churches, the marriage of blood-relations is forbidden in the collateral line to the seventh civil degree, 1. e. second cousins touching third, but in that degree is only preventive, not diriment (Wernz, IV, 627). Among the Italo-Greeks, however, the Maronites, and the Syrians the legislation of the Roman Church obtains (Benedict XIV, Etsi Pastorails, 26 May, 1742; Synod of Mount Lebanon, 1736; Synod. Sciarf. Syror., 1888). In the schismatic Churches of the East all marriages of relations in the direct line are prohibited; in the collateral line the seventh (civil) degree is the limit of prohibition; the remotest degree, however, is only a preventive impediment. In the National Greek Church, since 1873, marriage is forbidden within the sixth (civil) degree, i. e. second cousins; in Russia, since 1870, within the fourth (civil) degree, i. e. first cousins (cf. Zhishman, Eherecht d. oriental. Kirche, Vienna, 1864, and Milas, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländ. Kirche, Mostar, 1897).

DISPENSATION FROM THE IMPEDIMENT

Whatever dispensing power is available resides principally in the supreme authority of the Church, namely the Apostolic See. The pope generally exercises his power of dispensing through the Roman Congregations. For public dispensations (in foro externo) the Dataria (see ROMAN CURIA) is the ordinary medium for so-called Catholic countries; the Sacra Penitentiaria for cases of conscience (occult impediments) and of late for the cases of the poor. The Congregation of Propaganda is the medium for countries dependent on it, e. g. Great Britain and its dependencies and the United States. This power of dispensation with the right to subdelegate is often delegated to bishops, vicars Apostolic, and others having pastoral authority over souls. In whatever is forbidden by the law of nature there is no dispensation. In the direct line of consanguinity Nicholas I supposes that there is no room for dispensation. However, in cases of infidels when one or both are converted, while it is to be held that marriages within the first degree of the direct line are invalid, in all others the Holy See has to be consulted. The Holy See has the supreme right in doubtful cases to determine what may or may not be forbidden by the law of nature or by the Divine positive law. Benedict XIV, as already said, emphasized the fact that the popes had never granted a dispensation for a marriage between brother and sister, even where the union might have occurred without a knowledge of the relationship on the part of the contracting persons.

Consanguinity may be duplicated as arising from two sources: first, from two roots, e. g. two brothers marrying two women who are cousins; the children of each brother will be related to those of the other in the second degree on the father's side, and in the third degree on the mother's side; second, from one root, but when the descendants intermarry. hence, where there is a double consanguinity, there is a double impediment which must be expressed in the petition for dispensation; and should there be a more extensive duplication by still further intermarriages, all the forbidden degrees resulting from the blood-relationship should be mentioned in seeking dispensation. In the petition for dispensation, both series in the collateral consanguinity must be mentioned, though this is not necessary for validity of the dispensation. A special proviso is made when dispensation is sought from collateral consanguinity. It must be mentioned, even for validity, if the one part is next of kin to the root or common ancestor and the other within the forbidden degrees; the sex of the next of kin should also be mentioned, because of the greater difficulty of the dispensation for a nephew to marry his aunt. If the farthest should be in the fifth degree, there is even in that case no prohibition of marriage. The impediment of marriage arises also from any carnal intercourse, even outside of marriage, to the fourth degree of consanguinity. To consanguinity within the prohibited degrees may he added the gravamen of the crime of incest. If the incest were committed in the hope of facilitating the grant of a dispensation, this circumstance must be mentioned in the petition for dispensation; mention is also required if an attempt at marriage had been made, even if not consummated.

CIVIL LEGISLATION

In the Eastern Church the Quinisext Council (692) forbade, as we have seen, marriages between first cousins. In the eighth century Emperors Leo and Constantine confirmed this decree and forbade alliances between persons in the sixth degree of consanguinity according to the computation of the Roman civil law, i. e. between the grandchildren of brothers and sisters, and still later in the seventh degree of the same computation. This holds to-day in the Greek Church. The question of consanguinity is important in determining civil rights, which are mainly under control of the State, though illegitimacy often produces ecclesiastical disbarments (see Birth). The hindrances to marriage based on consanguinity vary considerably in different States. In Germany consanguinity is a bar only in the direct line, and between brothers and sisters. In France uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, are forbidden to intermarry, but dispensation may be granted by the head of the State. The prohibition does not extend to this relationship arising from an illegitimate union. Even in the most conservative Catholic countries, there is a tendency to limit the impediment of consanguinity. In England the statutes of Henry VIII, repealed in part by Edward VI and wholly by Phillip and Mary, were revived in Elizabeth's first year, the provision being that "no prohibition, God's law except, shall trouble or impeach any marriage outside Levitical law". The ecclesiastical interpretation was that consanguinity was an impediment to marriage as far as the third degree of civil computation. A man might not marry his aunt, or his niece, but might marry his first cousin. Relationship by the half-blood was put on the same footing as the full-blood, and illegitimate consanguinity was treated as equivalent to legitimate blood relationship. The courts regarded marriages within the forbidden degree as voidable rather than void, but such marriages were declared void by an act of 5 and 6 William IV (1835). In the United States all the States prohibit marriage between lineal descendants; most of them prohibit marriages between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt, and between first cousins (Desmond, The Church and the Law, Chicago, 1898, C. X).

GENEALOGICAL TABLE

We subjoin a genealogical table which exhibits the various degrees of consanguinity according to a custom in use in the Western Church since the seventh century (Isidore of Seville). This will be a useful guide in determining the extent of the impediment of affinity. Affinity from a true marriage is a diriment impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity of the deceased spouse; according to the ecclesiastical law a widower may not marry any of his deceased wife's blood-relations as far as the fourth degree inclusively, nor a widow her deceased husband's blood-relations. There is a modification if the affinity be one arising from illicit intercourse.

FEIJE, De Impedim. et Dispens. Matrin, (Louvain, 1885), ch. xiii, xxx, xxxi; SCAVINI, Theol. Mor., Bk. III, De Imped. Matr., art. 2 (Milan, 1858); DE ANGELIS, Prœl. Jur. Can., vol. III, pt. I, tit. xiv (Rome, 1880); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906) s. v.; ZITELLI, Apparat. Juris Eccl., Bk. II, ch. ii, art. 7, p. 439 (Rome, 1888); SANTI-LEITNER, Prœl. Jur. Can. (4th ed., New York, 1905), III, 245-61; KENRICK, Theol. Mor., Tract. xxi De Matr., ch. v. (Mechlin, 1861); ADDIS AND ARNOLD, Catholic Dictionary (London, 1903), s. v.; CRAISSON, Man. Jur. Can., vol. III, Bk. II, ch. viii, De Imped. Cognat. (Poitiers, 1880); LAURENTIUS, Inst. Jur. Can. (Freiburg, 1903), =A7 151; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit canon. (Paris, 1901), s. v.; D'AVINO, Enciclopedia dell' Ecclesiastico, s. v. Imped. del Matr. (Turin, 1878); HASTINGS. Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1902), s. v. Marriage; CHEYNE, Encyclopœdia Biblica (New York, 1899), s. v. Marriage.

RICHARD L. BURTSELL.

Conscience

I. THE NAME

In English we have done with a Latin word what neither the Latins nor the French have done: we have doubled the term, making "conscience" stand for the moral department and leaving "consciousness" for the universal field of objects about which we become aware. In Cicero we have to depend upon the context for the specific limitation to the ethical area, as in the sentence: "mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo" (Att., XII, xxviii, 2). Sir W. Hamilton has discussed how far we can be said to be conscious of the outer objects which we know, and how far "consciousness" ought to be held a term restricted to states of self or self-consciousness. (See Thiele, Die Philosophie des Selbstbewusstseins, Berlin, 1895.) In the two words Bewusstsein and Gewissen the Germans have made a serviceable distinction answering to our "consciousness" and "conscience". The ancients mostly neglected such a discrimination. The Greeks often used phronesis where we should use "conscience", but the two terms are far from coincident. They also used suneidesis, which occurs repeatedly for the purpose in hand both in the Old and the New Testament. The Hebrews had no formal psychology, though Delitzsch has endeavoured to find one in Scripture. There the heart often stands for conscience.

II. ORIGIN OF CONSCIENCE IN THE RACE AND IN THE INDIVIDUAL

Of anthropologists some do and some do not accept the Biblical account of man's origin; and the former class, admitting that Adam's descendants might soon have lost the traces of their higher descent, are willing to hear, with no pledge of endorsing, what the latter class have to say on the assumption of the human development even from an animal ancestry, and on the further assumption that in the use of evidences they may neglect sequence of time and place. It is not maintained by any serious student that the Darwinian pedigree is certainly accurate: it has the value of a diagram giving some notion of the lines along which forces are supposed to have acted. Not, then, as accepting for fact, but as using it for a very limited purpose, we may give a characteristic sketch of ethical development as suggested in the last chapter of Dr. L. T. Hobhouse's "Morals in Evolution". It is a conjectural story, very like what other anthropologists offer for what it is worth and not for fully certified science.

Ethics is conduct or regulated life; and regulation has a crude beginning in the lowest animal life as a response to stimulus, as reflex action, as useful adaptation to environment. Thus the amoeba doubles itself round its food in the water and lives; it propagates by self-division. At another stage in the animal series we find blind impulses for the benefit of life and its propagation taking a more complex shape, until something like instinctive purpose is displayed. Useful actions are performed, not apparently pleasurable in themselves, yet with good in the sequel which cannot have been foreseen. The care of the animal for its young, the provision for the need of its future offspring is a kind of foreshadowed sense of duty. St. Thomas is bold to follow the terminology of Roman lawyers, and to assert a sort of morality in the pairing and the propagating of the higher animals: "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit". (It is the natural law which nature has taught all animals.--"In IV Sent.", dist. xxxiii, a. 1, art. 4.) Customs are formed under the pressures and the interactions of actual living. they are fixed by heredity, and they await the analysis and the improvements of nascent reason. With the advent of man, in his rudest state--however he came to be in that state, whether by ascent or descent--there dawns a conscience, which, in the development theory, will have to pass through many stages. At first its categories of right and wrong are in a very fluid condition, keeping no fixed form, and easily intermixing, as in the chaos of a child's dreams, fancies, illusions, and fictions. The requirements of social life, which becomes the great moralizer of social action, are continually changing, and with them ethics varies its adaptations. As society advances, its ethics improves. "The lines on which custom is formed are determined in each society by the pressures, the thousand interactions of those forces of individual character and social relationship, which never cease remoulding until they have made men's loves and hates, their hopes and fears for themselves and their children, their dread of unseen agencies, their jealousies, their resentments, their antipathies, their sociability and dim sense of mutual dependence all their qualities good and bad, selfish and sympathetic, social and anti-social." (Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 262.) The grasp of experience widens and power of analysis increases, till, in a people like the Greeks, we come upon thinkers who can distinctly reflect on human conduct, and can put in practice the gnothi seauton (know thyself), so that henceforth the method of ethics is secured for all times, with indefinite scope left for its better and better application. "Here we have reached the level of philosophical or spiritual religions, systems which seek to concentrate all experience in one focus, and to illuminate all morality from one centre, thought, as ever, becoming more comprehensive as it becomes more explicit". (ibid., p. 266.)

What is said of the race is applied to the individual, as in him customary rules acquire ethical character by the recognition of distinct principles and ideals, all tending to a final unity or goal, which for the mere evolutionist is left very indeterminate, but for the Christian has adequate definition in a perfect possession of God by knowledge and love, without the contingency of further lapses from duty. To come to the fullness of knowledge possible in this world is for the individual a process of growth. The brain at first has not the organization which would enable it to be the instrument of rational thought: probably it is a necessity of our mind's nature that we should not start with the fully formed brain but that the first elements of knowledge should be gathered with the gradations of the developing structure. In the morally good family the child slowly learns right conduct by imitation, by instruction, by sanction in the way of rewards and punishments. Bain exaggerates the predominance of the last named element as the source whence the sense of obligation comes, and therein he is like Shaftesbury (Inquiry, II, n. 1), who sees in conscience only the reprover. This view is favoured also by Carlyle in his "Essay on Characteristics", and by Dr. Mackenzie in his "Manual of Ethics" (3rd ed., III, 14), where we read: "I should prefer to say simply that conscience is a feeling of pain accompanying and resulting from our non-conformity to principle." Newman also has put the stress on the reproving office of conscience. Carlyle says we should not observe that we had a conscience if we had never offended. Green thinks that ethical theory is mostly of negative use for conduct. (Prolegomena to Ethics, IV, 1.) It is better to keep in view both sides of the truth and say that the mind ethically developed comes to a sense of satisfaction in right doing and of dissatisfaction in wrongdoing, and that the rewards and the punishments judiciously assigned to the young have for their purpose, as Aristotle puts it, to teach the teachable how to find pleasure in what ought to please and displeasure in what ought to displease. The immature mind must be given external sanctions before it can reach the inward. Its earliest glimmering of duty cannot be clear light: it begins by distinguishing conduct as nice or as nasty and naughty: as approved or disapproved by parents and teachers, behind whom in a dim way stands the oft-mentioned God, conceived, not only in an anthropomorphic, but in a nepiomorphic way, not correct yet more correct than Caliban's speculations about Setebos. The perception of sin in the genuine sense is gradually formed until the age which we roughly designate as the seventh year, and henceforth the agent enters upon the awful career of responsibility according to the dictates of conscience. On grounds not ethical but scholastically theological, St. Thomas explains a theory that the unbaptized person at the dawn of reason goes through a first crisis in moral discrimination which turns simply on the acceptance or rejection of God, and entails mortal sin in case of failure. (I-II:89:6)

III. WHAT CONSCIENCE IS IN THE SOUL OF MAN?

It is often a good maxim not to mind for a time how a thing came to be, but to see what it actually is. To do so in regard to conscience before we take up the history of philosophy in its regard is wise policy, for it will give us some clear doctrine upon which to lay hold, while we travel through a region perplexed by much confusion of thought. The following points are cardinal:

• The natural conscience is no distinct faculty, but the one intellect of a man inasmuch as it considers right and wrong in conduct, aided meanwhile by a good will, by the use of the emotions, by the practical experience of living, and by all external helps that are to the purpose.
• The natural conscience of the Christian is known by him to act not alone, but under the enlightenment and the impulse derived from revelation and grace in a strictly supernatural order.
• As to the order of nature, which does not exist but which might have existed, St. Thomas (I-II:109:3) teaches that both for the knowledge of God and for the knowledge of moral duty, men such as we are would require some assistance from God to make their knowledge sufficiently extensive, clear, constant, effective, and relatively adequate; and especially to put it within reach of those who are much engrossed with the cares of material life. It would be absurd to suppose that in the order of nature God could be debarred from any revelation of Himself, and would leave Himself to be searched for quite irresponsively.
• Being a practical thing, conscience depends in large measure for its correctness upon the good use of it and on proper care taken to heed its deliverances, cultivate its powers, and frustrate its enemies.
• Even where due diligence is employed conscience will err sometimes, but its inculpable mistakes will be admitted by God to be not blameworthy. These are so many principles needed to steady us as we tread some of the ways of ethical history, where pitfalls are many.

IV. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSCIENCE CONSIDERED HISTORICALLY

(1) In pre-Christian times

The earliest written testimonies that we can consult tell us of recognized principles in morals, and if we confine our attention to the good which we find and neglect for the present the inconstancy and the admixture of many evils, we shall experience a satisfaction in the history. The Persians stood for virtue against vice in their support of Ahura Mazda against Ahriman; and it was an excellence of theirs to rise above "independent ethics" to the conception of God as the rewarder and the punisher. They even touched the doctrine of Christ's saying, "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" when to the question, what is the worth of the whole creation displayed before us, the Zend-Avesta has the reply: "the man therein who is delivered from evil in thought, word, and deed: he is the most valuable object on earth." Here conscience was clearly enlightened. Of the moral virtues among the Persians truthfulness was conspicuous. Herodotus says that the youth were taught "to ride and shoot with the bow", and "to speak the truth". The unveracious Greeks, who admired the wiles of an Odysseus, were surprised at Persian veracity (Herodotus, I, 136, 138); and it may be that Herodotus is not fair on this head to Darius (III, 72). The Hindus in the Vedas do not rise high, but in Brahminism there is something more spiritual, and still more in the Buddhist reform on its best side, considered apart from the pessimistic view of life upon which its false asceticism was grounded. Buddhism had ten prohibitive commandments: three concerning the body, forbidding murder, theft, and unchastity; four concerning speech, forbidding lying, slander, abusive language, and vain conversation; and three concerning the mind internally, covetousness, malicious thoughts, and the doubting spirit. The Egyptians show the workings of conscience. In the "Book of the Dead" we find an examination of conscience, or rather profession of innocence, before the Supreme Judge after death. Two confessions are given enunciating most of the virtues (chap. cxxv): reverence for God; duties to the dead; charity to neighbours; duties of superiors and subjects; care for human life and limb; chastity, honesty, truthfulness, and avoidance of slander; freedom from covetousness. The Assyro-Babylonian monuments offer us many items on the favourable side; nor could the people whence issued the Code of Hammurabi, at a date anterior to the Mosaic legislation by perhaps seven hundred years, be ethically undeveloped. If the Code of Hammurabi has no precepts of reverence to God corresponding with the first three Commandments of the Mosaic Law, at least its preface contains a recognition of God's supremacy. In China Confucius (c. 500 B. C.), in connection with an idea of heaven, delivered a high morality; and Mencius (c. 300 B. C.) developed this code of uprightness and benevolence as "Heaven's appointment". Greek ethics began to pass from its gnomic condition when Socrates fixed attention on the gnothi seauton in the interests of moral reflection. Soon followed Aristotle, who put the science on a lasting basis, with the great drawback of neglecting the theistic side and consequently the full doctrine of obligation. Neither for "obligation" nor for "conscience" had the Greeks a fixed term. Still the pleasures of a good conscience and the pains of an evil one were well set forth in the fragments collected by Stobaeus peri tou suneidotos. Penandros, asked what was true freedom, answered: "a good conscience" (Gaisford's Stobaeus, vol. I, p. 429).

(2) In the Christian Fathers

The patristic treatment of ethics joined together Holy Scripture and the classical authors of paganism; no system was reached, but each Father did what was characteristic. Tertullian was a lawyer and spoke in legal terms: especially his Montanism urged him to inquire which were the mortal sins, and thus he started for future investigators a good line of inquiry. Clement of Alexandria was allegoric and mystic: a combiner of Orientalism, Hellenism, Judaism, and Christianity in their bearing on the several virtues and vices. The apologists, in defending the Christian character, dwelt on the marks of ethical conduct. St. Justin attributed this excellence to the Divine Logos, and thought that to Him, through Moses, the pagan philosophers were indebted (Apol., I, xliv). Similarly Origen accounted for pre-Christian examples of Christian virtue. As a Roman skilled in legal administration St. Ambrose was largely guided by Latin versions of Greek ethics, as is very well illustrated by his imitation in style of Cicero's "De Officiis", which he made the title of his own work. He discusses honestum et utile (I, ix); decorum, or to prepon as exhibited in Holy Scripture (x); various degrees of goodness, mediocre and perfect, in connection with the text, "if thou wilt be perfect" (xi); the passions of hot youth (xvii). Subsequent chapters dwell on the various virtues, as fortitude in war and its allied quality, courage in martyrdom (xl, xli). The second book opens with a discussion of beatitude, and then returns to the different virtues. It is the pupil of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, who is, perhaps, the most important of the Fathers in the development of the Christian doctrine of conscience, not so much on account of his frequent discourses about moral subjects, as because of the Platonism which he drank in before his conversion, and afterwards got rid of only by degrees. The abiding result to the Scholastic system was that many writers traced their ethics and theology more or less to innate ideas, or innate dispositions, or Divine illuminations, after the example of St. Augustine. Even in St. Thomas, who was so distinctly an Aristotelean empiricist, some fancy that they detect occasional remnants of Augustinianism on its Platonic side.

Before leaving the Fathers we may mention St. Basil as one who illustrates a theorizing attitude. He was sound enough in recognizing sin to be graver and less grave; yet in the stress of argument against some persons who seemed to admit only the worst offenses against God to be real sins, he ventured without approving of Stoic doctrine, to point out a sort of equality in all sin, so far as all sin is a disobedience to God (Hom. de Justitia Dei, v-viii). Later Abelard and recently Dr. Schell abused this suggestion. But it has had no influence in any way like that of St. Augustine's Platonism, of which a specimen may be seen in St. Bonaventure, when he is treating precisely of conscience, in a passage very useful as shedding light on a subsequent part of this article. Some habits, he says, are acquired, some innate as regards knowledge of singulars and knowledge of universals. "Quum enim ad cognitionem duo concurrant necessario, videlicet praesentia cognoscibilis et lumen quo mediante de illo judicamus, habitus cognoscitivi sunt quodammodo nobis innati ratione luminis animo inditi; sunt etiam acquisiti ratione speciei"--"For as two things necessarily concur for cognition, namely, the presence of something cognoscible, and the light by which we judge concerning it, cognoscitive habits are in a certain sense innate, by reason of the light wherewith the mind is endowed; and they are also acquired, by reason of the species." ("Comment. in II Lib. Sent.", dist. xxxix, art. 1, Q. ii. Cf. St. Thomas, "De Veritate", Q. xi, art. 1: "Principia dicuntur innata quae statim lumine intellectus agentis cognoscuntur per species a sensibus abstractas".--Principles are called innate when they are known at once by the light of the active intellect through the species abstracted from the senses.) Then comes the very noticeable and easily misunderstood addition a little later: "si quae sunt cognoscibilia per sui essentiam, non per speciem, respectu talium poterit dici conscientia esse habitus simpliciter innatus, utpote respectu upote respectu hujus quod est Deum amare et timere; Deus enim non cognoscitur per similitudinem a sensu, immo `Dei notitia naturaliter est nobis inserta', sicut dicit Augustinus"--"if there are some things cognoscible through their very essence and not through the species, conscience, with regard to such things, may be called a habit simply innate, as, for example, with regard to loving and serving God; for God is not known by sense through an image; rather, 'the knowledge of God is implanted in us by nature', as Augustine says" ("In Joan.", Tract. cvi, n. 4; "Confess.", X, xx, xxix; "De Lib. Arbitr.", I, xiv, xxxi; "De Mor. Eccl.", iii, iv; "De Trin.", XIII, iii, vi; "Joan. Dam. de Fide", I, i, iii). We must remember that St. Bonaventure is not only a theologian but also a mystic, supposing in man oculus carnis, oculus rationis and oculus contemplationis (the eye of the flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation); and that he so seriously regards man's power to prove by arguments the existence of God as to devote his labour to explaining that logical conviction is consistent with faith in the same existence (Comm. in III Sent., dist. xxiv, art. 1, Q. iv). All these matters are highly significant for those who take up any thorough examination of the question as to what the Scholastics thought about man having a conscience by his very nature as a rational being. The point recurs frequently in Scholastic literature, to which we must next turn.

In Scholastic times

It will help to make intelligible the subtle and variable theories which follow, if it be premised that the Scholastics are apt to puzzle readers by mixing up with their philosophy of reason a real or apparent apriorism, which is called Augustinianism, Platonism, or Mysticism.

• As a rule, to which Durandus with some others was an exception, the Schoolmen regarded created causes as unable to issue in any definite act unless applied or stimulated by God, the Prime Mover: whence came the Thomistic doctrine of proemotio physica even for the intellect and the will, and the simple concursus of the non-Thomists.
• Furthermore they supposed some powers to be potential and passive, that is, to need a creative determinant received into them as their complement: of which kind a prominent example was the intellectus possibilis informed by the species intelligibilis, and another instance was in relation to conscience, the synteresis. (St. Thomas, De Verit., Q. xvi, art. 1, ad 13.)
• First principles or habits inherent in intellect and will were clearly traced by St. Thomas to an origin in experience and abstraction; but others spoke more ambiguously or even contradictorily; St. Thomas himself, in isolated passages, might seem to afford material for the priorist to utilize in favour of innate forms. But the Thomistic explanation of appetitus innatus, as contrasted with elicitus, saves the situation.

Abelard, in his "Ethics", or "Nosce Teipsum", does not plunge us into these depths, and yet he taught such an indwelling of the Holy Ghost in virtuous pagans as too unrestrictedly to make their virtues to be Christian. He placed morality so much in the inward act that he denied the morality of the outward, and sin he placed not in the objectively disordered deed but in contempt for God, in which opinion he was imitated by Prof. Schell. Moreover he opened a way to wrong opinions by calling free will "the free judgment about the will". In his errors, however, he was not so wholly astray as careless reading might lead some to infer. It was with Alexander of Hales that discussions which some will regard as the tedious minutiae of Scholastic speculation began. The origin lay in the introduction from St. Jerome (in Ezech., I, Bk. I, ch. 1) of the term synteresis or synderesis. There the commentator, having treated three of the mystic animals in the Prophecy as symbolizing respectively three Platonic powers of the soul -- to epithumetikon (the appetitive), to thumikon (the irascible), and to logikon (the rational) -- uses the fourth animal, the eagle, to represent what he calls sunteresis. The last, according to the texts employed by him to describe it, is a supernatural knowledge: it is the Spirit Who groans in man (Rom., viii, 26), the Spirit who alone knows what is in man (I Cor., ii, 11), the Spirit who with the body and the soul forms the Pauline trichotomy of I Thess., v, 23. Alexander of Hales neglects this limitation to the supernatural, and takes synteresis as neither a potentia alone, nor a habitus alone but a potentia habitualis, something native, essential, indestructible in the soul, yet liable to be obscured and baffled. It resides both in the intelligence and in the will: it is identified with conscience, not indeed on its lower side, as it is deliberative and makes concrete applications, but on its higher side as it is wholly general in principle, intuitive, a lumen innatum in the intellect and a native inclination to good in the will, voluntas naturalis non deliberativa (Summa Theologica I-II:71 to I-II:77). St. Bonaventure, the pupil, follows on the same lines in his "Commentarium in II Sent." (dist. xxxix), with the difference that he locates the synteresis as calor et pondus in the will only distinguishing it from the conscience in the practical intellect, which he calls an innate habit--"rationale iudicatorium, habitus cognoscitivus moralium principiorum"-- "a rational judgment, a habit cognoscitive of moral principles". Unlike Alexander he retains the name conscience for descent to particulars: "conscientia non solum consistit in universali sed etiam descendit ad particularia deliberativa" --"conscience not only consists in the universal but also descends to deliberative particulars". As regards general principles in the conscience, the habits are innate: while as regards particular applications, they are acquired (II Sent., dist xxxix, art. 1, Q; ii).

As forming a transition from the Franciscan to the Dominican School we may take one whom the Servite Order can at least claim as a great patron, though he seems not to have joined their body, Henry of Ghent. He places conscience in the intellect, not in the affective part--"non ad affectivam pertinet"--by which the Scholastics meant generally the will without special reference to feeling or emotion as distinguished in the modern sense from will. While Nicholas of Cusa described the Divine illumination as acting in blind-born man (virtus illuminati coecinati qui per fidem visum acquirit), Henry of Ghent required only assistances to human sight. Therefore he supposed:

• an influentia generalis Dei to apprehend concrete objects and to generalize thence ideas and principles;
• a light of faith;
• a lumen speciale wherewith was known the sincera et limpida veritas rerum by chosen men only, who saw things in their Divine exemplars but not God Himself;
• the lumen gloriæ to see God.

For our purpose we specially note this: "conscientia ad partem animae cognitivam non pertinet, sed ad affectivam"--"conscience belongs not to the cognitive part of the mind, but to the affective" (Quodlibet., I, xviii). St. Thomas, leading the Dominicans, places synteresis not in the will but in the intellect, and he applies the term conscience to the concrete determinations of the general principle which the synteresis furnishes: "By conscience the knowledge given through synteresis is applied to particular actions". ("De Verit.", Q. xvii, a. 2.; Cf. Summa Theologica, Q. lxxix, a. 13; "III Sent.", dist. xiv, a. 1, Q. ii; "Contra Gent.", II, 59.) Albertus agrees with St. Thomas in assigning to the intellect the synteresis, which he unfortunately derives from syn and hoerere (haerens in aliquo) (Summa Theol., Pt. II, Q. xcix, memb. 2, 3; Summa de Creaturis, Pt. II, Q. lxix, a. 1). Yet he does not deny all place to the will: "Est rationis practicae . . . non sine voluntate naturali, sed nihil est voluntatis deliberativae (Summa Theol., Pt. II, Q. xcix, memb. 1). The preference of the Franciscan School for the prominence of will, and the preference of the Thomistic School for the prominence of intellect is characteristic. (See Scotus, IV Sent., dist. xlix, Q. iv.) Often this preference is less significant than it seems. Fouillée, the great defender of the idée force-- idea as the active principle--allows in a controversy with Spencer that feeling and will may be involved in the idea. Having shown how Scholasticism began its research into conscience as a fixed terminology, we must leave the matter there, adding only three heads under which occasion was given for serious errors outside the Catholic tradition:

• While St. Augustine did excellent service in developing the doctrine of grace, he never so clearly defined the exact character of the supernatural as to approach the precision which was given through the condemnation of propositions taught by Baius and Jansenius; and in consequence his doctrine of original sin remained unsatisfactory. When Alexander of Hales, without distinction of natural and supernatural, introduced among the Scholastics the words of St. Jerome about synteresis as scintilla conscientia, and called it lumen innatum, he helped to perpetuate the Augustinian obscurity.
• As regards the intellect, several Scholastics inclined to the Arabian doctrine of intellectus agens, or to the Aristotelean doctrine of the Divine nous higher than the human soul and not perishable with it. Roger Bacon called the intellectus agens a distinct substance. Allied with this went Exemplarism, or the doctrine of archetypic ideas and the supposed knowledge of things in these Divine ideas. [Compare the prolepseis emphutoi of the Stoics, which were universals, koinai ennoiai]. Henry of Ghent distinguished in man a double knowledge: "primum exemplar rei est species eius universalis causata a re: secundum est ars divina, continens rerum ideales rationes" --"the first exemplar of a thing is universal species of it caused by the thing: the second is the Divine Art containing the ideal reasons (rationes) of things" (Theol., I, 2, n. 15). Of the former he says: "per tale exemplar acquisitum certa et infallibilis notitia veritatis est omnino impossibilis"--"through such an acquired exemplar, certain and infallible knowledge of truth is utterly impossible" (n. 17); and of the latter: "illi soli certam veritatem valent agnoscere qui earn in exemplari (aeterno) valent aspicere, quod non omnes valent"--"they alone can know certain truth who can behold it in the (eternal) exemplar, which not all can do" (I, 1, n. 21;). The perplexity was further increased when some, with Occam, asserted a confused intuition of things singular as opposed to the clearer idea got by the process of abstraction: "Cognitio singularis abstractiva praesupponit intuitivam ejusdem objecti"--"abstractive cognition of a singular presupposes intuitive cognition of the same object" (Quodlib., I, Q. xiii). Scotus also has taught the confused intuition of the singulars. Here was much occasion for perplexity on the intellectual side, about the knowledge of general principles in ethics and their application when the priority of the general to the particular was in question.
• The will also was a source of obscurity. Descartes supposed the free will of God to have determined what for conscience was to be right and what wrong, and he placed the act of volition in an affirmation of the judgment. Scotus did not go thus far, but some Scotists exaggerated the determining power of Divine will, especially so as to leave it to the choice of God indefinitely to enlarge a creature's natural faculties in a way that made it hard to distinguish the natural from the supernatural. Connected with the philosophy of the will in matters of conscience is another statement open to controversy, namely, that the will can tend to any good object in particular only by reason of its universal tendency to the good. This is what Alexander of Hales means by synteresis as it exists in the will, when he says that it is not an inactive habit but a habit in some sense active of itself, or a general tendency, disposition, bias, weight, or virtuality. With this we might contrast Kant's pure noumenal will, good apart from all determinedly good objects.

Anti-Scholastic Schools

The history of ethics outside the Scholastic domain, so far as it is antagonistic, has its extremes in Monism or Pantheism on the one side and in Materialism on the other.

Spinoza

Spinoza is a type of the Pantheistic opposition. His views are erroneous inasmuch as they regard all things in the light of a fated necessity, with no free will in either God or man; no preventable evil in the natural course of things; no purposed good of creation; no individual destiny or immortality for the responsible agent: indeed no strict responsibility and no strict retribution by reward or punishment. On the other hand many of Spinoza's sayings if lifted into the theistic region, may be transformed into something noble. The theist, taking up Spinoza's phraseology in a converted sense, may, under this new interpretation, view all passionate action, all sinful choice, as an "inadequate idea of things", as "the preference of a part to the detriment of the whole", while all virtue is seen as an "adequate idea" taking in man's "full relation to himself as a whole, to human society and to God". Again, Spinoza's amor Dei intellectualis becomes finally, when duly corrected, the Beatific Vision, after having been the darker understanding of God enjoyed by Holy men before death, who love all objects in reference to God. Spinoza was not an antinomian in conduct; he recommended and practiced virtues. He was better than his philosophy on its bad side, and worse than his philosophy on its good side after it has been improved by Christian interpretation.

Hobbes

Hobbes stands for ethics on a Materialistic basis. Tracing all human action to self-love, he had to explain the generous virtues as the more respectable exhibitions of that quality when modified by social life. He set various schools of antagonistic thought devising hypotheses to account for disinterested action in man. The Cambridge Platonists unsatisfactorily attacked him on the principle of their eponymous philosopher, supposing the innate noemata to rule the empirical aisthemata by the aid of what Henry More called a "boniform faculty", which tasted "the sweetness and savour of virtue". This calling in of a special faculty had imitators outside the Platonic School; for example in Hutcheson, who had recourse to Divine "implantations" of benevolent disposition and moral sense, which remind us somewhat of synteresis as imperfectly described by Alexander of Hales. A robust reliance on reason to prove ethical truth as it proved mathematical truths, by inspection and analysis, characterized the opposition which Dr. Samuel Clarke presented to Hobbes. It was a fashion of the age to treat philosophy with mathematical rigour; but very different was the "geometrical ethics" of Spinoza, the necessarian, from that of Descartes, the libertarian, who thought that God's free will chose even the ultimate reasons of right and wrong and might have chosen otherwise. If Hobbes has his representatives in the Utilitarians, the Cambridge Platonists have their representatives in more or less of the school of which T. H. Green is a leading light. A universal infinite mind seeks to realize itself finitely in each human mind or brain, which therefore must seek to free itself from the bondage of mere natural causality and rise to the liberty of the spirit, to a complete self-realization in the infinite Self and after its pattern. What this pattern ultimately is Green cannot say; but he holds that our way towards it at present is through the recognized virtues of European civilization, together with the cultivation of science and art. In the like spirit G.E. Moore finds the ascertainable objects that at present can be called "good in themselves" to be social intercourse and aesthetic delight.

Kant

Kant may stand midway between the Pantheistic and the purely Empirical ethics. On the one side he limited our knowledge, strictly so called, of things good to sense-experiences; but on the other he allowed a practical, regulative system of ideas lifting us up to God. Duty as referred to Divine commands was religion, not ethics: it was religion, not ethics, to regard moral precepts in the light of the commands of God. In ethics these were restricted to the autonomous aspect, that is, to the aspect of them under which the will of each man was its own legislator. Man, the noumenon, not the phenomenon, was his own lawgiver and his own end so far as morality went: anything beyond was outside ethics proper. Again, the objects prescribed as good or forbidden as bad did not enter in among the constituents of ethical quality: they were only extrinsic conditions. The whole of morality intrinsically was in the good will as pure from all content or object of a definite kind, from all definite inclination to benevolence and as deriving its whole dignity from respect for the moral law simply as a moral law, self-imposed, and at the same time universalized for all other autonomous individuals of the rational order. For each moral agent as noumenal willed that the maxim of his conduct should become a principle for all moral agents.

We have to be careful how in practice we impute consequences to men who hold false theories of conscience. In our historical sketch we have found Spinoza a necessarian or fatalist; but he believed in effort and exhortation as aids to good life. We have seen Kant assert the non-morality of Divine precept and of the objective fitness of things, but he found a place for both these elements in his system. Similarly Paulsen gives in the body of his work a mundane ethics quite unaffected by his metaphysical principles as stated in his preface to Book II. Luther logically might be inferred to be a thorough antinomian: he declared the human will to be enslaved, with a natural freedom only for civic duties; he taught a theory of justification which was in spite of evil deeds; he called nature radically corrupt and forcibly held captive by the lusts of the flesh; he regarded divine grace as a due and necessary complement to human nature, which as constituted by mere body and soul was a nature depraved; his justification was by faith, not only without works, but even in spite of evil works which were not imputed. Nevertheless he asserted that the good tree of the faith-justified man must bring forth good works; he condemned vice most bitterly, and exhorted men to virtue. Hence Protestants can depict a Luther simply the preacher of good, while Catholics may regard simply the preacher of evil. Luther has both sides.

V. CONSCIENCE IN ITS PRACTICAL WORKING

The supremacy of conscience

The supremacy of conscience is a great theme of discourse. "Were its might equal to its right", says Butler, "it would rule the world". With Kant we could say that conscience is autonomously supreme, if against Kant we added that thereby we meant only that every duty must be brought home to the individual by his own individual conscience, and is to this extent imposed by it; so that even he who follows authority contrary to his own private judgment should do so on his own private conviction that the former has the better claim. If the Church stands between God and conscience, then in another sense also the conscience is between God and the Church. Unless a man is conscientiously submissive to the Catholic Church his subjection is not really a matter of inner morality but is mechanical obedience.

Conscience as a matter of education and perfectibility

As in all other concerns of education, so in the training of conscience we must use the several means. As a check on individual caprice, especially in youth, we must consult the best living authorities and the best traditions of the past. At the same time that we are recipient our own active faculties must exert themselves in the pursuit with a keen outlook for the chances of error. Really unavoidable mistakes will not count against us; but many errors are remotely, when not proximately, preventable. From all our blunders we should learn a lesson. The diligent examiner and corrector of his own conscience has it in his power, by long diligence to reach a great delicacy and responsiveness to the call of duty and of higher virtue, whereas the negligent, and still more the perverse, may in some sense become dead to conscience. The hardening of the heart and the bad power to put light for darkness and darkness for light are results which may be achieved with only too much ease. Even the best criteria will leave residual perplexities for which provision has to be made in an ethical theory of probabilities which will be explained in the article PROBABILISM. Suffice it to say here that the theory leaves intact the old rule that a man in so acting must judge that he certainly is allowed thus to act, even though sometimes it might be more commendable to do otherwise. In inferring something to be permissible, the extremes of scrupulosity and of laxity have to be avoided.

The approvals and reprovals of conscience

The office of conscience is sometimes treated under too narrow a conception. Some writers, after the manner of Socrates when he spoke of his doemon as rather a restrainer than a promoter of action, assign to conscience the office of forbidding, as others assign to law and government the negative duty of checking invasion upon individual liberty. Shaftesbury (Inquiry II, 2, 1) regards conscience as the consciousness of wrongdoing, not of rightdoing. Carlyle in his "Essay on Characteristics" asserts that we should have no sense of having a conscience but for the fact that we have sinned; with which view we may compare Green's idea about a reasoned system of ethics (Proleg., Bk. IV, ch. ii, sect. 311) that its use is negative "to provide a safeguard against the pretext which in a speculative age some inadequate and misapplied theories may afford our selfishness rather than in the way of pointing out duties previously ignored". Others say that an ethics of conscience should no more be hortatory than art should be didactic. Mackenzie (Ethics, 3rd ed., Bk. III, ch. I, sect. 14) prefers to say simply that "conscience is a feeling of pain accompanying and resulting from nonconformity to principle". The suggestion which, by way of contrary, these remarks offer is that we should use conscience largely as an approving and an instigating and an inspiring agency to advance us in the right way. We should not in morals copy the physicists, who deny all attractive force and limit force to vis a tergo, a push from behind. Nor must we think that the positive side of conscience is exhausted in urging obligations: it may go on in spite of Kant, beyond duty to works of supererogation. Of course there is a theory which denies the existence of such works on the principle that every one is simply bound to the better and the best if he feels himself equal to the heroic achievement. This philosophy would lay it down that he who can renounce all and give it to the poor is simply obliged to do so, though a less generous nature is not bound, and may take advantage --if it be an advantage--of its own inferiority. Not such was the way in which Christ put the case: He said hypothetically, "if thou wilt be perfect", and His follower St. Peter said to Ananias "Was not [thy land] thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (Acts, v, 4.) We have, then, a sphere of duty and beyond that a sphere of free virtue, and we include both under the domain of conscience. It is objected that only a prig considers the approving side of his conscience, but that is true only of the priggish manner, not of the thing itself; for a sound mind may very well seek the joy which comes from a faithful, generous heart, and make it an effort of conscience that outstrips duty to aim at higher perfection, not under the false persuasion that only after duty has been fulfilled does merit begin, but under the true conviction that duty is meritorious, and that so also is goodness in excess of duty. Not that the eye is to be too narrowly fixed on rewards: these are included, while virtue for virtue's sake and for the sake of God is carefully cultivated.

JOHN RICKABY

Hendrik Conscience

A Flemish novelist, b. at Antwerp, 3 December, 1812; d. at Brussels, 10 September, 1883. His father was French and his mother Flemish. Until the age of seven Conscience was a cripple, and was constantly under the care of his mother who used to tell him wonderful tales of fairies and angels. Little by little, however, he grew stronger, and was able to take part in the games of other children, but, as soon as he could read, books were his favourite companions. In fact, it was by reading that he mainly educated himself, for his schooling was limited to what would be considered to-day as the elementary grade. In 1830 he was a tutor in the Delin School, to some degree a fashionable institution of Antwerp, but at the very beginning of the struggle for independence he resigned his position and entered the army as a private.

His military service, which lasted six years, brought him into contact with the peasants of the northern part of Belgium, and gave him an opportunity to study their manners, their customs, and to see the attractive sides of their character, rough as it is on the surface. After leaving the army he was successively connected with the local administration of Antwerp, the academy of the same city, and, in 1857, with the local administration of Courtrui. In 1868 he was appointed commissioner of the royal museums of painting and sculpture. He had taught Flemish to the sons of King Leopold I, and in 1868 refused the chair of Flemish literature in the University of Ghent. In 1869 he became a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium.

While in the army Conscience began to write, but in French. In 1837, following the advice of his friend Jan Delaet, he made up his mind to write in Flemish, an idiom which was then considered too rude for literary composition. In this language he published his first novel, "The Wonderful Year", and six months later a volume of verse and prose, "Phantazij". These two highly romantic productions, where everything, romance, style, and even language, lay open to criticism, were failures. Conscience, however, was in no way dismayed and took in hand another work. This time his efforts were crowned with success. When, in 1838, "The Lion of Flanders" appeared, it enriched Flemish literature with a masterpiece. After this success he never ceased writing. His complete works embrace more than a hundred volumes.

Conscience got his inspiration from three main sources: the fatherland, the family, and loyalty to the Church. His conception of art is an idealistic one, though he gives a vivid account of the realities of life. His avowed purpose was always to inspire the people with a love for the good and the beautiful. He possesses to a high degree the sense of the dramatic and pathetic; he has a wonderful power of grasping the picturesque side of things, and often renders it with a rare felicity of expression. His works enjoyed a great vogue, and have been translated into most of the European languages. Several English editions appeared in London, Edinburg, and Baltimore. Among his historical novels "The Lion of Flanders" and "Jacob van Artevelde" are considered his best achievements; among his studies of life and manners the most successful were "Siska van Roosemael" and "The Blessing of Being Rich"; among his village tales the best known are "The Conscript" and "Baas Gasendonck". The city of Antwerp raised a monument to this famous son, which was unveiled some weeks before his death.

P.J. MARIQUE

Consciousness

(Lat. conscientia; Ger. Bewusstsein) cannot, strictly speaking, be defined. In its widest sense it includes all our sensations, thoughts, feelings, and volitions--in fact the sum total of our mental life. We indicate the meaning of the term best by contrasting conscious life with the unconscious state of a swoon, or of deep, dreamless sleep. We are said to be conscious of mental states when we are alive to them, or are aware of them in any degree. The term self-conscious is employed to denote the higher or more reflective form of knowledge, in which we formally recognize our states as our own. Consciousness in the wide sense has come to be recognized in modern times as the subject-matter of a special science, psychology; or, more definitely, phenomenal or empirical psychology. The investigation of the facts of consciousness, viewed as phenomena of the human mind, their observation, description, and analysis, their classification, the study of the conditions of their growth and development, the laws exhibited in their manifestation, and, in general, the explanation of the more complex mental operations and products by their reduction to more elementary states and processes, is held to be the business of the scientific psychologist at the present day.

HISTORY

The scientific or systematic study of the phenomena of consciousness is modern. Particular mental operations, however, attracted the attention of acute thinkers from ancient times. Some of the phenomena connected with volition, such as motive, intention, choice, and the like, owing to their ethical importance, were elaborately investigated and described by early Christian moralists; whilst some of our cognitive operations were a subject of interest to the earliest Greek philosophers in their speculations on the problem of human knowledge. The common character, however, of all branches of philosophy in the ancient world, was objective, an inquiry into the nature of being and becoming in general, and of certain forms of being in particular. Even when epistemological questions, investigations into the nature of knowing, were undertaken, as e. g. by the School of Democritus, there seems to have been very little effort made to test the theories by careful comparison with the actual experience of our consciousness. Accordingly, crude hypotheses received a considerable amount of support. The great difference between ancient and modern methods of investigating the human mind will be best seen by comparing Aristotle's "De Anima" and any modern treatise such as William James' "Principles of Psychology." Although there is plenty of evidence of inductive inquiry in the Greek philosopher's book, it is mainly of an objective character; and whilst there are incidentally acute observations on the operations of the senses and the constitution of some mental states, the bulk of the treatise is either physiological or metaphysical. On the other hand the aim of the modern inquirer throughout is the diligent study by introspection of different forms of consciousness, and the explanation of all complex forms of consciousness by resolving them into their simplest elements. The Schoolmen, in the main, followed the lines of the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. There is a striking uniformity in the tractate "De Anima" in the hands of each successive writer throughout the whole of the Middle Ages. The object and conditions of the operations of the cognitive and appetitive faculties of the soul, the constitution of species, the character of the distinction between the soul and its faculties, the connexion of soul and body, the inner nature of the soul, its origin and destiny are discussed in each treatise from the twelfth to the sixteenth century; whilst the method of argument throughout rests rather on an ontological analysis of our concepts of the various phenomena than on painstaking introspective study of the character of our mental activities themselves.

However, as time went on, the importance of certain problems of Christian theology, not so vividly realized by the ancients, compelled a more searching observation of consciousness and helped on the subjective movement. Free will, responsibility, intention, consent, repentance, and conscience acquired a significance unknown to the old pagan world. This procured an increasingly copious treatment of these subjects from the moral theologians. The difficulties surrounding the relations between sensuous and intellectual knowledge evoked more systematic treatment in successive controversies. Certain questions in ascetical and mystical theology also necessitated more direct appeal to strictly psychological investigation among the later Schoolmen. Still, it must be admitted that the careful inductive observation and analysis of our consciousness, so characteristic of modern psychological literature, occupies a relatively small space in the classical De animâ of the medieval schools. The nature of our mental states and processes is usually assumed to be so obvious that detailed description is needless, and the main part of the writer's energy is devoted to metaphysical argument. Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" (1690) and the writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588- 1679), both of which combine with confused and superficial metaphysics much acute observation and genuinely scientific attempts at analysis of various mental states, inaugurated the systematic inductive study of the phenomena of the mind which has grown into the modern science of consciousness, the empirical or phenomenal psychology of the present day. In Great Britain the idealism of Berkeley, which resolved the seemingly independent material world into a series of ideas awakened by God in the mind, and the scepticism of Hume, which professed to carry the analysis still farther, dissolving the mind itself into a cluster of states of consciousness, focused philosophical speculation more and more on the analytic study of mental phenomena, and gave rise to the Associationist School. This came at last virtually to identify all philosophy with psychology. Reid and Stewart, the ablest representatives of the Scotch School, whilst opposing Hume's teaching with a better psychology, still strengthened by their method the same tendency. Meantime, on the Continent, Descartes' system of methodic doubt, which would reduce all philosophical assumptions to his ultimate cogito, ergo sum, furthered the subjective movement of speculation from another side, for it planted the seed of the sundry modern philosophies of consciousness, destined to be evolved along various lines by Fichte, Schelling, and Hartmann.

Such being in outline the history of modern speculation in regard to human consciousness, the question of primary interest here is: Viewed from the standpoint of Catholic theological and philosophical teaching, what estimate is to be formed of this modern psychological method, and of the modern science of the phenomena of consciousness? It seems to the present writer that the method of careful industrious observation of the activities of the mind, the accurate description and classification of the various forms of consciousness, and the effort to analyse complex mental products into their simplest elements, and to trace the laws of the growth and development of our several faculties, constitute a sound rational procedure which is as deserving of commendation as the employment of sound scientific method in any other branch of knowledge. Further, since the only natural means of acquiring information respecting the inner nature of the soul is by the investigation of its activities, the scientific study of the facts of consciousness is a necessary preliminary at the present day to any satisfactory metaphysics of the soul. Assuredly no philosophy of the human soul which ignores the results of scientific observation and experiment applied to the phenomena of consciousness can to-day claim assent to its teaching with much hope of success. On the other hand, most English-speaking psychologists since the time of Locke, partly through excessive devotion to the study of these phenomena, partly through contempt for metaphysics, seem to have fallen into the error of forgetting that the main ground for interest in the study of our mental activities lies in the hope that we may draw from them inferences as to the inner constitution of the being, subject, or agent from which these activities proceed. This error has made the science of consciousness, in the hands of many writers, a "psychology without a soul". This is, of course, no necessary consequence of the method. With respect to the relation between the study of consciousness and philosophy in general, Catholic thinkers would, for the most part, hold that a diligent investigation of the various forms of our cognitive consciousness must be undertaken as one of the first steps in philosophy; that one's own conscious existence must be the ultimate fact in every philosophical system; and that the veracity of our cognitive faculties, when carefully scrutinized, must be the ultimate postulate in every sound theory of cognition. But the prospect of constructing a general philosophy of consciousness on idealistic lines that will harmonize with sundry theological doctrines which the Church has stamped with her authority, does not seem promising. At the same time, although much of our dogmatic theology has been formulated in the technical language of the Aristotelean physics and metaphysics, and though it would be, to say the least, extremely difficult to disentangle the Divinely revealed religious element from the human and imperfect vehicle by which it is communicated, yet it is most important to remember that the conceptions of Aristotelean metaphysics are no more part of Divine Revelation than are the hypotheses of Aristotelean physics; and that the technical language with its philosophical associations and implications in which many of our theological doctrines are clothed, is a human instrument, subject to alteration and correction.

QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The term psychophysics is employed to denote a branch of experimental psychology which seeks to establish quantitative laws describing the general relations of intensity exhibited in various kinds of conscious states under certain conditions. Elaborate experiments and ingenious instruments have been devised by Weber, Fechner, Wundt, and others for the purpose of measuring the strength of the stimulus needed to awaken the sensations of the several senses, the quantity of variation in the stimulus required to produce a consciously distinguishable sensation, and so to discover a minimum increment or unit of consciousness: also to measure the exact duration of particular conscious processes, the "reaction-time" or interval between the stimulation of a sense-organ and the performance of a responsive movement, and similar facts. These results have been stated in certain approximate laws. The best established of these is the Weber-Fechner generalization, which enunciates the general fact that the stimulus of a sensation must be increased in geometrical progression in order that the intensity of the resulting sensation be augmented in arithmetical progression. The law is true, however, only of certain kinds of sensation and within limits. Whilst these attempts to reach quantitative measurement-- characteristic of the exact sciences--in the study of consciousness have not been directly very fruitful in new results, they have nevertheless been indirectly valuable in stimulating the pursuit of greater accuracy and precision in all methods of observing and registering the phenomena of consciousness.

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

A most important form of consciousness from both a philosophical and a psychological point of view is self-consciousness. By this is understood the mind's consciousness of its operations as its own. Out of this cognition combined with memory of the past emerges the knowledge of our own abiding personality. We not only have conscious states like the lower animals, but we can reflect upon these states, recognize them as our own, and at the same time distinguish them from the permanent self of which they are the transitory modifications. Viewed as the form of consciousness by which we study our own states, this inner activity is called introspection. It is the chief instrument employed in the building up of the science of psychology, and it is one of the many differentiae which separate the human from the animal mind. It has sometimes been spoken of as an "internal sense", the proper object of which is the phenomena of consciousness, as that of the external senses is the phenomena of physical nature. Introspection is, however, merely the function of the intellect applied to the observation of our own mental life. The peculiar reflective activity exhibited in all forms of self-consciousness has led modern psychologists who defend the spirituality of the soul, increasingly to insist on this operation of the human mind as a main argument against materialism. The cruder form of materialism advocated in the nineteenth century by Broussais, Vogt, Moleschott, and at times by Huxley, which maintained that thought is merely a "product", "secretion", or "function" of the brain, is shown to be untenable by a brief consideration of any form of consciousness. All "secretions" and "products" of material agents of which we have experience, are substances which occupy space, are observable by the external senses, and continue to exist when unobserved. But all states of consciousness are non-spatial; they cannot be observed by the senses, and they exist only as we are conscious of them--their esse is percipi. Similarly "functions" of material agents are, in the last resort, resolvable into movements of portions of matter. But states of consciousness are not movements any more than they are "secretions" of matter. The contention, however, that all states of consciousness, though not "secretions" or "products" of matter, are yet forms of activity which have their ultimate source in the brain and are intrinsically and absolutely dependent on the latter is not disposed of by this reasoning.

To meet this objection, attention is directed to the form of intellectual activity exhibited in reflective self-consciousness. In this process there is recognition of complete identity between the knowing agent and the object which is known; the ego is at once subject and object. This feature of our mental life has been adduced in evidence of the immateriality of the soul by former writers, but under the title of an argument from the unity of consciousness it has been stated in perhaps its most effective form by Lotze. The phrase "continuity of consciousness" has been employed to designate the apparent connectedness which characterizes our inner experience, and the term "stream" of consciousness has been popularized by Professor James as an apt designation of our conscious life as a whole. Strictly speaking, this continuity does not pertain to the "states" or phenomena of consciousness. One obviously large class of interruptions is to be found in the nightly suspension of consciousness during sleep. The connecting continuity is really in the underlying subject of consciousness. It is only through the reality of a permanent, abiding principle or being which endures the same whilst the transitory states come and go that the past experience can be linked with the present, and the apparent unity and continuity of our inner life be preserved. The effort to explain the seeming continuity of our mental existence has, in the form of the problem of personal identity, proved a hopeless crux to all schools of philosophy which decline to admit the reality of some permanent principle such as the human soul is conceived to be in the Scholastic philosophy. John Stuart Mill, adhering to the principles of Hume, was driven to the conclusion that the human mind is merely "a series of states of consciousness aware of itself as a series". This has been rightly termed by James "the definite bankruptcy" of the Associationist theory of the human mind. James' own account of the ego as "a stream of consciousness" in which "each passing thought" is the only "thinker" is not much more satisfactory.

ABNORMAL FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

In processes of self-conscious activity the relative prominence of the self and the states varies much. When the mind is keenly interested in some external event, e. g. a race, the notice of self may be diminished almost to zero. On the other hand, in efforts of difficult self-restraint and deliberate reflection, the consciousness of the ego reaches its highest level. Besides this experience of the varying degrees of the obtrusiveness of the self, we are all conscious at times of trains of thought taking place automatically within us, which seem to possess a certain independence of the main current of our mental life. Whilst going through some familiar intellectual operation with more or less attention, our mind may at the same time be occupied in working out a second series of thoughts connected and coherent in themselves, yet quite separate from the other process in which our intellect is engaged. These secondary "split-off" processes of thought may, in certain rare cases, develop into very distinct, consistent, and protracted streams of consciousness; and they may occasionally become so complete in themselves and so isolated from the main current of our mental life, as to possess at least a superficial appearance of being the outcome of a separate personality. We have here the phenomenon of the so-called "double ego". Sometimes the sections or fragments of one fairly consistent stream of consciousness alternate in succession with the sections of another current, and we have the alleged "mutations of the ego", in which two or more distinct personalities seem to occupy the same body in turn. Sometimes the second stream of thought appears to run on concomitantly with the main current of conscious experience, though so shut off as only to manifest its existence occasionally. These parallel currents of mental life have been adduced by some writers in support of an hypothesis of concomitant "multiple personalities". The psychological literature dealing with these phenomena is very large. Here it suffices to observe in passing that all these phenomena belong to morbid mental life, that their nature and origin are admittedly extremely obscure, and that the cases in which the ego or subject of one stream of consciousness has absolutely no knowledge or memory of the experiences of the other, are extremely few and very doubtful. The careful and industrious observations, however, which are being collected in this field of mental pathology are valuable for many purposes; and even if they have not so far thrown much light on the problem of the inner nature of the soul, at all events they stimulate effort towards an important knowledge of the nervous conditions of mental processes, and they ought ultimately to prove fruitful for the study of mental disease.

Reverie, dreams, and somnambulistic experiences are forms of consciousness mediating between normal life and the eccentric species of mentality we have just been discussing. One particular form of abnormal consciousness which has attracted much attention is that exhibited in hypnotism (q. v.). The type of consciousness presented here is in many respects similar to that of somnambulism. The main feature in which it differs is that the hypnotic state is artificially induced and that the subject of this state remains in a condition of rapport or special relation with the hypnotizer of such a kind that he is singularly susceptible to the suggestions of the latter. One feature of the hypnotic state in common with some types of somnambulism and certain forms of the "split-off" streams of consciousness consists in the fact that experiences which occurred in a previous section of the particular abnormal state, though quite forgotten during the succeeding normal consciousness, may be remembered during a return of the abnormal state. These and some other kindred facts have given rise to much speculation as to the nature of mental life below the "threshold" or "margin" of consciousness. Certain writers have adopted the hypothesis of a "subliminal", in addition to our ordinary "supraliminal", consciousness, and ascribe a somewhat mystic character to this former. Some assume a universal, pantheistic, subliminal consciousness continuous with the subliminal consciousness of the individual. Of this universal mind they maintain that each particular mind is but a part. The question, indeed, as to the existence and nature of unconscious mental operations in individual minds has been in one shape or another the subject of controversy from the time of Leibniz. That during our normal conscious existence obscure, subconscious mental processes, at best but faintly recognizable, do take place, is indisputable. That latent activities of the soul which are strictly unconscious, can be truly mental or intellectual operations is the point in debate. Whatever conclusions be adopted with respect to those various problems, the discussion of them has established beyond doubt the fact that our normal consciousness of everyday life is profoundly affected by subconscious processes of the soul which themselves escape our notice. (See PERSONALITY; PSYCHOLOGY; SOUL.)

MICHAEL MAHER

Consecration

Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies. The custom of consecrating persons to the Divine service and things to serve in the worship of God may be traced to the remotest times. We find rites of consecration mentioned in the early cult of the Egyptians and other pagan nations. Among the Semitic tribes it consisted in the threefold act of separating, sanctifying, or purifying, and devoting or offering to the Deity. In the Hebrew Law we find it applied to the entire people whom Moses, by a solemn act of consecration, designates as the People of God. As described in the Book of Exodus (xxiv), the rite used on this occasion consisted

• of the erection of an altar and twelve memorial stones (to represent the twelve tribes);
• of the selection of twelve youths to perform the burnt-offering of the holocaust;
• Moses read the covenant, and the people made their profession of obedience;
• Moses sprinkled upon the people the blood reserved from the holocaust.

Later on we read of the consecration of the priests -- Aaron and his sons (Exod., xxix) -- who had been previously elected (Exod., xxviii). Here we have the act of consecration consisting of purifying, investing, and anointing (Lev., viii) as a preparation for their offering public sacrifice. The placing of the meat in their hands (Exod., xxix) was considered an essential part of the ceremony of consecration, whence the expression filling the hand has been considered identical with consecrating. As to the oil used in this consecration, we find the particulars in Exodus (xxx, 23, 24; xxxvii, 29).

Distinct from the priestly consecration is that of the Levites (Num., iii, 6) who represent the first-born of all the tribes. The rite of their consecration is described in Numbers, viii. Another kind of personal consecration among the Hebrews was that of the Nazarites (Num., vi). It implied the voluntary separation from certain things, dedication to God, and a vow of special sanctity. Similarly, the rites of consecration of objects -- such as temples, altars, firstfruits, spoils of war, etc. -- are minutely described in the Old Testament. Among the Romans whatever was devoted to the worship of their gods (fields, animals, etc.) was said to be consecrated, and the objects which pertained intimately to their worship (temples, altars, etc.) were said to be dedicated. These words were, however, often used indiscriminately, and in both cases it was understood that the object once consecrated or dedicated remained sacred in perpetuum.

The Church distinguishes consecration from blessing, both in regard to persons and to things. Hence the Roman Pontifical treats of the consecration of a bishop and of the blessing of an abbot, of the blessing of a corner-stone and the consecration of a church or altar. In both, the persons or things pass from a common, or profane, order to a new state, and become the subjects or the instruments of Divine protection. At a consecration the ceremonies are more solemn and elaborate than at a blessing. The ordinary minister of a consecration is a bishop, whilst the ordinary minister of a blessing is a priest. At every consecration the holy oils are used; at a blessing customarily on holy water. The new state to which consecration elevates persons or things is permanent, and the rite can never be repeated, which is not the case at a blessing; the graces attached to consecration are more numerous and efficacious than those attached to a blessing; the profanation of a consecrated person or thing carries with it a new species of sin, namely sacrilege, which the profanation of a blessed person or thing does not always do.

Of consecration proper the Roman Pontifical contains one of persons, that is of a bishop, and four of things, that is, of a fixed altar, of an altar-stone, of a church, and of a chalice and paten. The consecration of a church is also called its dedication (q.v.) in accordance with the distinction between consecration and dedication among the ancient Romans pointed out above. To these might be probably added confirmation and Holy orders, for which, however, the Roman Pontifical, because they are distinct sacraments, has retained their proper names. If we except the consecration of a bishop, which is a sacrament -- although there is a question among theologians, whether the sacrament and the character imprinted by it are distinct from the sacrament and character of the priesthood, or only a certain extension of the sacerdotal sacrament and character -- all the other consecrations are sacramentals. These are inanimate things which are not susceptible of Divine grace, but are a medium of its communication, since by their consecration they acquire a certain spiritual power by which they are rendered in perpetuum fit and suitable for Divine worship. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol., III:83:3, ad 3 and 4.)

In the Eastern Churches the prayers at the consecration of altars and sacred vessels are of the same import as those used in the Latin Church, and they are accompanied by the sign of the cross and the anointing with holy oils (Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orient. Collectio", I, Ad benedictiones). At the consecration of a bishop, the Orientals hold, with the Latins, that the essence consists in the laying-on of hands, and they entirely omit the anointing with holy oils (Morinus, De sacris Ecclesiæ ordinationibus, Pars III, Appendis).

When we speak of consecration without any special qualification, we ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine along remaining. This change is produced in virtue of the words: This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood, pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches (Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection", I, i).

I. CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP

The consecration of a bishop marks the plenitude of the priesthood, and it is probable that on this account the "Pontificale Romanum" places the ceremony of episcopal consecration immediately after that of the ordination of priests, Tit. XIII, "De consecratione electi in Episcopum". Episcopal jurisdiction is acquired by the act of election and confirmation or by definite appointment, whilst the fullness of the priestly power itself is obtained in consecration, as the completion of hierarchical orders. Formerly the consecration of a suffragan bishop was performed jure communi by the metropolitan of the province, who could delegate another bishop. An archbishop was consecrated by one of his suffragans, the senior being usually selected. If the bishop-elect was not a suffragan of any ecclesiastical province, the nearest bishop performed the ceremony. According to the present discipline of the Church the office of consecrator is reserved to the Roman pontiff, who performs the consecration in person or delegates it to another (Benedict XIV, Const. "In postremo", 10 October 1756, sect. 17). If the consecration takes place in Rome, and the bishop-elect receives the permission to choose the consecrator, he must select a cardinal who is a bishop, or one of the four titular Latin patriarchs residing in Rome. If they refuse to perform the ceremony, he may choose any archbishop or bishop. A suffragan, however, is obliged to select the metropolitan of his province, if the latter be in Rome (ibidem). In Rome the consecration takes place in a consecrated church or in the papal chapel (Cong. Sac. Rit., Decr. V of the lates idit., no date). If the consecration is to take place outside of Rome, and Apostolic commission is sent to the bishop-elect, in which the Roman pontiff grants him the faculty of choosing any bishop having communion with the Holy See to consecrate him and administer the oath, a pledge of obedience and respect to the Apostolic See. Besides the consecrator, the ancient canons and the general practice of the Church require two assistant bishops. This is not of Divine but of Apostolic institution (Santi, "Praelectiones Juris Canonici", Vol. I, Tit. vi, n. 49), and hence in cases of necessity, when it is impossible to procure three bishops, the places of the two assistant bishops may, by Apostolic favour, be filled by priests, who should be dignitaries (Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 July, 1605). These priests must observe the rubrics of the "Pontificale Romanum" with regard to the imposition of hands and the kiss of peace (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 June, 1853). Benedict XIV (De Synod. Cioec., Lib. XIII, cap. xiii, n. 2sqq.) holds that the consecration of a bishop, when the consecrator is assisted by one priest, although the Apostolic Brief required two assistant priests, is valid although illicit. In missionary countries the consecrator may perform the ceremony without the assistance even of priests (Zitelli, "Apparatus Juris Ecclesiastici", Lib. I, Tit. i, sect. iv). The selection of the assistant bishops or priests is left to the consecrator, whose choice is, however, understood to be in harmony, with the wishes of the bishop-elect (Martinucci, Lib. VII, cap. iv, n. 5).

The day of consecration should be a Sunday or the feast of an Apostle, that is to say a dies natalitia, and not merely a day which commemorates some event of his life, e.g. the Conversion of St. Paul. Since in liturgy Evangelists are regarded as Apostles (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 July, 1706) their feast days may be selected. The choice of any other day must be ratified by special indult of the Holy See. Outside of Rome the consecration out to be performed, if it can be conveniently done, in the cathedral of the diocese, and within the province of the bishop-elect; the latter may, however, select any church or chapel for the ceremony. A bishop must be consecrated before the expiration of three months after his election or appointment. If it is delayed beyond this time without sufficient reason, the bishop is obliged to relinquish the revenues to which he is entitled; if it is delayed six months, he may be deprived of his episcopal see (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, cap. ii, De Reform). Titular bishops forfeit their right of episcopal dignity unless they are consecrated within six months of their appointment (Benedict XIV, Const. "Quum a nobis", 4 Aug., 1747, sect. Hæc sane). According to the ancient canons, both the consecrator and the bishop-elect are expected to observe the day preceding the consecration as a fast day.

The ceremony of consecration of a bishop is one of the most splendid and impressive known to the Church. It may be divided into four parts: The preludes, the consecration proper, the presentation of the insignia, and the conclusion. It takes place during mass celebrated by both the consecrator and the bishop-elect. For this purpose a separate altar is erected for the bishop-elect near the altar at which the consecrator celebrates Mass, either in a side chapel, or in the sanctuary, or just outside of it.

Preludes

The consecrator is vested in full pontificals of the colour of the Mass of the day; the assistant bishops, in amice, stole, and cope of the same colour, and a white linen or damask mitre; the bishop-elect in amice, alb, cincture, white stole crossed on the breast, and cope and biretta. The consecrator is seated on a faldstool placed on the predella of the altar, facing the bishop-elect, who sits between the assistant bishops, upon a seat placed on the sanctuary floor. The senior assistant bishop presents the elect to the consecrator, after which the Apostolic commission is called for and read. Then the elect, kneeling before the consecrator, takes an oath in which he promises to be obedient to the Holy See, to promote its rights, honours, privileges, and authority, visit the City of Rome at stated times, render an account of his whole pastoral office to the pope, execute all Apostolic mandates, and preserve inviolable all the possessions of his Church. Then follows the examination, in which seventeen questions concerning the canons of the Church and articles of faith are proposed, to which the elect answers, "I will", and "I do believe", respectively, each time rising slightly and uncovering his head. Mass is now begun at the foot of the consecratorUs altar and continued down to "Oremus. Aufer a nobis" inclusively. The elect is then led by the assistant bishop to the side altar, at which, having been clad in his pontifical vestments, he continues the Mass, simultaneously with the consecrator, down to the last verse of the Gradual, Tract, or Sequence exclusively, without any change in the liturgy, except that the collect for the elect is added to the prayer of the day under one conclusion. The elect is again presented to the consecrator, who sets forth the duties and powers of a bishop: "It behooves a bishop to judge, interpret, consecrate, offer, baptize and confirm." The clergy and the faithful are then invited to pray that God may bestow the abundance of His grace on the elect. The Litany of the Saints is now recited or chanted, while the elect lies prostrate on the floor of the sanctuary and all the others knell.

Consecration

The consecrator, aided by the assistant bishops, takes the book of the Gospels and, opening it, places it on the neck and shoulders of the elect, so that the bottom of the page be next to the electUs head, and the book is held in this manner by one of the clergy until it is to be given to the elect after the presentation of the ring. This rite is found in all the ancient rituals -- Latin, Greek and Syriac -- though in early times it seems not to have been universal among the Latins. Now follows the imposition of hands, which, according to the common opinion, is the essence of the consecration. Both the consecrator and the assistant bishops place both hands, to express the plenitude of the power conferred and of the grace asked for, on the head of the elect, saying, "Receive the Holy Ghost" -- without restriction and with all His gifts, as the simple formula indicates. Theologians do not agree as to whether the communication of the gift of the Holy Ghost is directly implied in these words, but the prayers which follow seem to determine the imposition of hands by which the grace and power of the episcopacy is signified and conferred. In the Greek ritual the prayer which accompanies the imposition of hands is clearly the form. The "Veni, Creator Spiritus" is sung, during which the consecrator first makes the sign of the cross with holy chrism on the crown or tonsure of the new bishop and then anoints the rest of the crown. That this unction is to symbolize the gifts of the Holy Ghost with which the Church desires a bishop to be filled, is evident from the prayer which follows, "May constancy of faith, purity of love, sincerity of peace abound in him". The anointing of the hands of the bishop in the form of a cross, and afterwards of the entire palms, then follows. This unction indicates the powers that are given to him. The consecrator then makes thrice the sign of the cross over the hands thus anointed and prays: "Whatsoever thou shalt bless, may it be blessed; and whatsoever thou shalt sanctify may it be sanctified; and may the imposition of this consecrated hand and thumb be profitable in all things to salvation." The hands of the bishop are then joined, the right resting on the left, and placed in a linen cloth which is suspended from his neck.

Presentation of the episcopal insignia

The crosier is then blessed and handed to the bishop, who receives it between the index and middle fingers, the hands remaining joined. The consecrator at the same time admonishes him, as the Ritual indicates, that the true character of the ecclesiastical shepherd is to temper the exercise of justice with meekness, and not to neglect strictness of discipline through love of tranquility. The consecrator then blesses the ring and places it on the third finger of the bishopUs right hand, reminding the latter that it is the symbol of fidelity which he owes to Holy Church. The book of the Gospels is taken from the bishopUs shoulders and handed to him, with the command to go and preach to the people committed to his care. He then receives the kiss of peace from the consecrator and the assistant bishops, and the latter conduct him to his altar, where the crown of his head is cleansed with crumbs of bread, and his hair is adjusted. Afterwards the bishop washes his hands, and both he and the consecrator, at their respective altars, continue the Mass as usual, down to the prayer of the Offertory inclusively. After the Offertory the new bishop is led to the consecratorUs altar where he presents to the latter two lighted torches, two loaves of bread, and two small barrels of wince. This offering is a relic of ancient discipline, according to which the faithful made their offerings on such occasions for the support of the clergy and other purposes connected with religion. From the Offertory to the Communion the bishop stands at the Epistle side of the consecratorUs altar and recites the acts together with the latter everything as indicated in the Missal. After the consecrator has consumed one-half of the Host which he consecrated at Mass, and partaken of one-half of the Precious Blood together with the particle of the consecrated Host that was dropped into the chalice, he Communicates the bishop by giving him, first, the other half of the consecrated Host, and then the Precious Blood remaining in the chalice. Both take the ablutions from different chalices, after which the new bishop goes to the Gospel side of the consecratorUs altar, and with the consecrator continues the Mass down to the blessing inclusively. The consecrator then blesses the mitre and places it on the head of the bishop, referring to its mystical signification and a helmet of protection and salvation, that the wearer of it may seem terrible to the opponents of truth and be their sturdy adversary. The gloves are then blessed and put on the hands of the bishop, referring to the action of Jacob, who, having his hands covered with the skins of kids, implored and received the paternal blessing. In like manner the consecrator prays that the wearer of the gloves may deserve to implore and receive the blessings of Divine grace by means of the saving Host offered by his hands.

Conclusion

The new bishop is then enthroned on the faldstool on the predella, from which the consecrator has risen, or, if the ceremony be performed in the cathedral of the new bishop, on the usual episcopal throne. The Te Deum is now intoned by the consecrator, and while the hymn is being sung the new bishop is led by the assistant bishops through the church, that he bay bless the people. Having returned to the altar -- or to the throne of his own cathedral -- the bishop gives the final solemn blessing as usual. The consecrator and assistant bishops move toward the Gospel corner of the altar and face the Epistle side; the new bishop goes to the Epistle corner, and there, with mitre and crosier, facing the consecrator, makes a genuflection and chants "Ad multos annos". He proceeds to the middle of the predella and performs the same ceremony, chanting in a higher tone of voice. After this the consecrator and assistant bishops receive him to the kiss of peace. Accompanied by the assistant bishops, he returns to his altar, reciting the Gospel of St. John. All then lay aside their vestments and depart in peace.

II. CONSECRATION OF A FIXED ALTAR

At the consecration of a church at least one fixed altar must be consecrated. Altars, permanent structures of stone, may be consecrated at other times, but only in churches that have been consecrated or at least solemnly blessed. We have instances in which a simply priest has performed this rite. Walafridus Strabo, in the Life of St. Gall (ch. vi), says that St. Columban, at that time being a priest, having dedicated the church of St. Aurelia at Bregenz on the Lake of Constance, anointed the altar, deposited the relics of St. Aurelia under it, and celebrated Mass on it. But according to the present discipline of the Church, the ordinary minister of its consecration is the diocesan bishop. Without the permission of the ordinary, a bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate an altar, although without such permission the consecration would be valid. One and the same bishop must perform the rite from the beginning to the end. An altar may be consecrated on any day of the year, but a Sunday or feast day is to be preferred (Pontificale Romanum). It is difficult to determine when the rite used at present was introduced. To the essentials of consecration reference is made as early as the sixth century by the Council of Agde (506): "Altars are to be consecrated not only by the chrism, but with the sacerdotal blessing"; and by St. Caesarius of Arles (d. about 542) in a sermon delivered at the consecration of an altar: "We have today consecrated an altar, the stone of which was blessed or anointed" (Migne, P.L., LXVII, Serm. ccxxx).

The ceremonies of the exposition of the relics on the evening before the day of consecration, the keeping of the vigil, the blessing of the Gregorian water, the sprinkling of the altar, and the translation of the relics to the church are the same as those described at the consecration of a church (see IV, below). When the relics have been carried to the church, the consecrator anoints with holy chrism, at the four corners, the sepulchre of the altar (see ALTAR), in which the relics are to be enclosed, thereby sanctifying the cavity in which the venerated remains of the martyrs are to rest, and then reverently places therein the case containing the relics and incenses them. Having anointed with holy chrism the nether side of the small slab that is to cover the sepulchre, he spreads blessed cement over the ledge of the sepulchre on the inside and fits the slab into the cavity, after which he anoints the upper side of the slab and the altar-table near it. He then incenses the altar, first, on every side -- right, left, front and on top -- whilst the chanters sing the antiphon "Stetit angelus"; secondly, in the form of a cross on the top, in the middle, and at the four corners, thirdly, whilst going round the altar three times. After the third incensation, the censer is given to a priest, vested in surplice, who, till the end of the consecration, continues going around the altar, incensing it on all sides, save when the bishop uses the censer. The incense symbolizes the sweet odour of prayer which is to ascend from the altar to heaven, whilst the fullness of the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is to descend on the altar and the faithful, is indicated by the prayers recited after the three unctions which follow. The consecrator then anoints the table of the altar at the middle of the four corners, twice with the oil of catechumens, and the third time with holy chrism. After each unction he goes round the altar once, incensing it continuously, the first and second time passing by the Epistle side, and third time by the Gospel side. Finally, as if to indicate the complete sanctification of the altar, he pours and spreads over its table the oil of catechumens and holy chrism together, rubbing the holy oils over it with his right hand, whilst the chanters sing the appropriate antiphon, "Behold the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field", etc. (Gen., xxvii, 27, 28). When the church is consecrated at the same time, the twelve crosses on the inner walls are now anointed with holy chrism and incensed. The consecrator then blesses the incense and sprinkles it with holy water. Then he forms it into five crosses, each consisting of five grains, on the table of the altar, in the middle and at the four corners. Over each cross of incense he places a cross made of thin wax taper. The ends of each cross are lighted and with them the incense is burned an consumed. This ceremony symbolizes the true sacrifice which is thereafter to be offered on the altar; and it indicates that our prayers must be fervent and animated by true and lively faith if they are to be acceptable to God and efficacious against our spiritual enemies. Finally, the bishop traces with holy chrism a cross on the front of the altar and on the juncture of the table and the base on which it rests at the four corners, as if to join them together, to indicate that this altar is to be in future a firmly fixed and constant source of grace to all who with faith approach it. Then follow the blessings of the altar-cloths, vases, and ornaments of the altar, the celebration of Mass, and the publication of the Indulgences, as at the end of the consecration of a church.

Loss of Consecration

An altar loses its consecration: (1) when the table of the altar is broken into two or more large pieces; (2) when at the corner of the table that portion which the consecrator anointed with holy oil is broken off; (3) when several large stones of the support of the table are removed; (4) when one of the columns which support the table at the corners is removed; (5) if for any reason whatever the table is removed from the support, or only raised from it -- e.g., to renew the cement; (6) by the removal of the relics, or by the fracture or removal, by chance or design, of the small cover, or slab, placed over the cavity containing the relics. (See also HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR.).

III. CONSECRATION OF AN ALTAR-STONE

Mass must be celebrated either on an altar which has been consecrated or on a consecrated altar-stone, or portable altar (Rubr. Gen. Miss., XX). Its consecration is a less solemn function than the consecration of an altar. It may take place on any day of the year in the morning, as, after its consecration. Mass must be celebrated upon it the same day. If several stones are consecrated, it suffices to celebrate Mass on one of the altars so consecrated. The ceremony may take place in the church, sacristy, or any other suitable place.

The cavity for the relics is made on the top of the stone, usually near its front edge. It may be in the centre of the stone, but never on its front edge (Cong. Sac. Rit., 13 June, 1899). Relics of two martyrs with three grains of incense, are placed immediately (i.e. without a reliquary) in its cavity, which is closed with a small slab of natural stone fitting exactly upon the opening. The Cong Sac. Rit (16 Feb., 1906) declared that for valid consecration it suffices to have enclosed in the cavity the relics of one martyr. The Pontifical makes no mention of the blessing of the cement with which the slab is secured, but the Cong. Sac. Rit. (10 May, 1890) prescribes it.

Ordinarily, only a bishop may consecrate an altar-stone, but by pontifical privilege some abbots have this faculty for altar-stones used in their own churches. The Holy See frequently grants this privilege to priests labouring in missionary countries. The bishops of the United States have the faculty of delegating priests to perform the function by virtue of the "Facultates Extraordinariae", C, VI. The relics are not exposed, nor are Matins and Lauds recited on the evening before the consecration; neither is the vigil kept. The ceremonies are similar to those used at the consecration of an altar. Hence the blessing of the Gregorian water, the sprinkling and incensation, the anointing with holy chrism and the oil of catechumens, the burning of incense and the offering of the Holy sacrifice, take place; and the symbolical meanings of these ceremonies are the same as those given at the consecration of an altar.

IV. CONSECRATION OF A CHURCH

By a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII), Mass should not be celebrated in any place except a consecrated or blessed church. Hence it is the wish of the Church that at least cathedrals and parish churches be solemnly consecrated, and that smaller churches be blessed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 7 Aug., 1875), but any church and public or semi-public oratory may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 5 June, 1899). Both by consecration and by blessing a church is dedicated to Divine worship, which forbids its use for common or profane purposes. Consecration is a rite reserved to a bishop, who by the solemn anointing with holy chrism, and in the prescribed form, dedicates a building to the service of God, thereby raising it in perpetuum to a higher order, removing it from the malign influence of Satan, and rendering it a place in which favours are more graciously granted by God (Pontificale Romanum). The blessing of a church is a less solemn rite, which may be performed by a priest delegated by the diocesan bishop. It consists in the sprinkling with holy water and the recital of prayers, thus making it a sacred place, though not necessarily in perpetuum. Consecration differs from mere blessing in this, that it imprints an indelible mark (St. Thomas, II-II:34:3) on the building by reason of which it may never be transferred to common or profane uses.

The consecration of churches dates probably from Apostolic times and is, in a sense, a continuation of the Jewish rite instituted by Solomon. Some authors attribute its origin to Pope St. Evaristus (d. 105), but it is more probable that he merely promulgated formally as a law what had been the custom before his time, or prescribed that a church cannot be consecrated without the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. That churches were consecrated before peace had been granted to the Church would appear not only from the life of St. Cecilia (Roman Breviary, 22 November), who prayed for a cessation from hostilities against the Christians in order that her home might be consecrated as a church by St. Urban I (222-230), but also from the life of St. Marcellus (308-309), who appears to have actually consecrated a church in the home of St. Lucina (Roman Breviary, 16 January). Before the time of Constantine the consecration of churches was, on account of the persecutions, necessarily private, but after the conversion of that emperor it became a solemn public rite, as appears from Eusebius of Cæsarea (Hist. Eccl., X): "After these things a spectacle earnestly prayed for and much desired by us all appeared, viz. the solemnization of the festival of the dedication of churches throughout every city, and the consecration of newly-built oratories." The passage clearly indicates that churches were consecrated before, and that accordingly the anniversaries of the dedication might now be publicly celebrated.

It is difficult to determine in what the rite of consecration consisted in early times. Many sermons preached on these occasions are still extant, and we find occasional notices of the vigil kept before the consecration, of the translation of the relics, and of the tracing of the Greek and the Latin alphabet on the pavement of the church. The relics were not always the whole body of a saint or even large portions of it, but sometimes merely articles with which the martyr came in contact. Churches were sometimes consecrated without depositing relics. Some ancient forms of consecration prescribe that the Host consecrated by the bishop be deposited. Often only the Greek alphabet or the Latin was written twice; and sometimes to the Greek and Latin the Hebrew alphabet was added (Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus, II). The rite does not appear to have always been one and the same, but the essential element of the ceremony--namely, the actual separation of any building from common to a sacred use, which would be the first religious act in the process of initiating and appropriating it to a Divine use--was always called its consecration. In allusion to this fact the first beginning of anything is often styled its dedication (Bingham, Origines sive Antiquit. Eccles., VIII, ix, sect. 1), which word the Roman Pontifical uses in this place only--"De Ecclesiæ Dedicatione seu Consecratione"--elsewhere the word consecratio only is used. It cannot be definitely decided when the rite of consecration in use at present began to be employed. The Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (733-767), bears a striking resemblance to it.

The ordinary minister of consecration is the diocesan bishop. He may, however, delegate another bishop to perform this function. A bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate a church without the permission of the diocesan bishop, although without such permission the church would be validly consecrated. A priest cannot perform this rite unless he be delegated in a special manner by the Roman pontiff (Benedict XIV, Const. "Ex tuis precibus", 16 November 1748, xxx2). To consecrate a church licitly it is necessary to consecrate a fixed altar in the same church, which altar ordinarily ought to be in the main on (Cong. Sac. Rit., 19 Sept., 1665). If this altar is already consecrated, one of the side altars may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 Aug., 1872). If all the altars of a church are already consecrated, it cannot be licitly consecrated except by special Apostolic indult. One and the same bishop must consecrate both the church and the altar (Cong. Sac. Rit., 3 March, 1866). Although the consecration of the altar may for some reason be invalid, yet the church remains consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 17 June, 1843). The essence of the consecration of a church consists in the anointing of the twelve crosses on the inner walls with the form: "Sancificetur et consecretur hoc templum", etc. If before this ceremony the consecrator should become incapacitated for finishing the function, the whole rite must be repeated from the beginning (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 April, 1614). The church should stand free on all sides so that the bishop may pass around it. If there be obstructions at only some points, the church may be consecrated (Cong. Sac. Rit., 19 September, 1665), but if the obstructions be of such a nature that the exterior walls cannot be reached, the church may not be consecrated without a special Apostolic indult (Cong. Sac. Rit., 22 February, 1888). On the walls inside the church twelve crosses must be painted, or (if they are made of stone or metal) attached to the walls. These crosses are not to be of wood or of any fragile material. They must never be removed (Cong. Sac. Rit., 18 February, 1696), and documents failing, they serve to prove that the church has been consecrated. Under each cross a bracket holding a candle is affixed.

The consecration may take place on any day of the year, but a Sunday or feast day is to be preferred (Pontificale Romanum). The consecrator and those who ask for the consecration (Van der Stappen, III, quæst. 32, iii, says, "all the parishioners, if it be a parish church"; Bernardk, "Le Pontifical", II, p. 7, only the clergy attached to the church; Marc, "Institutiones Morales", I, n. 1221 nota 2!, only the parish priest, if he alone asked) are obliged to observe the day before the consecration as a day of fasting and abstinence. If the consecration takes place on Monday, the fast is observed on the preceding Saturday. On the evening preceding the day of consecration, the consecrating bishop places in a reliquary the relics of the martyrs, which are to be placed in the altar, three grains of incense, and an attestation written on parchment. The Cong. Sac. Rit., 16 February, 1906, declared that for the valid consecration it suffices to have enclosed the relics of one martyr. The reliquary is then placed in an urn or in the tabernacle of an altar in a nearby church or oratory, or in an adjacent room or the sacristy. At least two candles are kept burning before these relics during the night, and Matins and Lauds de communi plurimorum martyrum or of the proper Office of the martyrs whose relics have been placed in the reliquary, are sung or recited. At the beginning of the consecration on the next day the candles under the crosses on the walls are lighted. After this the bishop and the clergy go to the place in which the relics of the martyrs were deposited the evening before, the church meanwhile being left in charge of a deacon. Whilst the bishop is being vested the Seven Penitential Psalms are recited, after which all proceed to the main entrance of the church, where, remaining outside, the bishop blesses the water. The bishop then goes three times round the outside of the church, the first time sprinkling the upper part of the walls, the second time the lower part, and the third time on a level with his face. After each circuit the bishop strikes the door with the base of his crosier and says, "Lift up your gates, ye princes, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in." Three times the deacon within the church asks, "Who is this King of Glory?" Twice the bishop answers, "The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord mighty in battle"; and the third time he says, "The Lord of Armies, He is the King of Glory". This triple sprinkling and circuit of the walls, according to Bl. Yves of Chartres (Sermo de Sacramentis Dedicationis), symbolizes the triple immersion at holy baptism, the consecration of the soul as the spiritual temple of God, to which the material bears a certain analogy.

The bishop and his attendants now enter the church, leaving the clergy and the people outside, and the door is closed. The chanters sing the "Veni, Creator Spiritus" and chant or recite the Litany of the Saints. After this, whilst the canticle "Benedictus" is being chanted, the bishop traces with the point of his crosier, in the ashes spread on the floor, first, the Greek alphabet, beginning at the left side of the church door and proceeding to the Epistle corner of the church near the altar, then the Latin alphabet, beginning at the right side of the church door and proceeding to the Gospel corner of the church near the altar. The "Liber Sacramentorum" of St. Gregory I and the "Pontifical" of Egbert, Archbishop of York, attest the antiquity of this ceremony, which symbolized the instruction given to the newly baptized in the elements of faith and piety. The crossing of the two lines points to the cross, that is Christ crucified, as the principal dogma of the Christian religion. The Greek and Latin languages represent the Jews and Gentiles respectively. The Greek alphabet is written first because the Jews were first called to the Christian Faith. The bishop then blesses the Gregorian water, a mixture of water, salt, ashes, and wine, prescribed by St. Gregory I to be used at the consecration of a church (P.L., LXXVIII, 152 sqq.). After this he goes to the main door of the church and with the point of the crosier traces a cross on the upper part and another on the lower part of the door inside. The ingredients of this water are to recall to our mind the legal purifications and the sacrifices of the Jewish people, the wine taking the place of the blood. The symbolism of this mixture is explained by authors in various manners. The cross traced on the door is to be, as it were, a guard lest the work of redemption in the church be thwarted by the malignant influences from without. The bishop now traces, with the Gregorian water, five crosses on the altar and then sprinkles the support and tables of the altar seven times, passing round it seven times, whilst the chanters sing or recite the Psalm "Miserere". He then sprinkles the walls in the interior of the church three times, first the lower part, then on a level with his face, and lastly, the upper part, after which he sprinkles the floor of the church in the form of a cross, passing from the altar in the middle of the church. Having returned to the middle of the church, he sprinkles with one swing each time the floor before him, behind him, at his left, and at his right.

The bishop, clergy, and laity then go to the place in which the relics repose and in solemn procession carry them to the church. Before entering the relics are borne round the outside of the church, whilst the clergy and people repeat "Lord, have mercy on us". Having returned to the church door, the bishop gives a suitable exhortation to the people and addresses the founder of the church. Then one of the clergy reads the two decrees of the Council of Trent from the Pontifical. The bishop next anoints with holy chrism, three times, the pillar on each side of the door, after which the clergy and the laity enter the church, and the consecration of the altar takes place. (See II above.) Finally, the twelve crosss on the interior walls are anointed with holy chrism and incensed by the bishop; the altar-cloths, vases, and ornaments of the church and altar are blessed, and solemn or low Mass is celebrated by the bishop. If he be too fatigued, he may appoint a priest to celebrate a high Mass in his stead. If more than one altar has been consecrated, it will suffice to celebrate Mass on the principal one (Cong. Sac. Rit., 22 February, 1888). At the end of the Mass an Indulgence of one year is published, which may be gained by all who visit the church on the day of consecration. At the same time another Indulgence which may be gained in the same manner on the anniversary of the consecration is published. If the latter Indulgence is granted by a cardinal in his titular church or in his diocese, it may be of two hundred days; if by an archbishop, of one hundred days; if by a bishop, of fifty days, in their respective dioceses. (S.C. Indulg., 28 Aug., 1903).

The anniversary of the consecration is kept solemnly as a double of the first class with an octave each recurring year, until the church falls into ruin or is profaned. In order to avoid the inconveniences likely to arise from its clashing with other solemnities, the bishop is empowered to appoint, in the act of consecration, another day for the anniversary, provided such day be not a double feast of the first or second class in the Universal Church, a privileged Sunday, or a local feast of the first class (Cong. Sac. Rit., 4 Feb., 1896), or a day of Advent or Lent (Cong. Sac. Rit., 12 June, 1660). Should the bishop fail to do so, or defer making such arrangement, the anniversary must be kept on the recurring actual day, or recourse must be had to the Apostolic See (Gardellini, Adnot. super Decr. dat. 6 Sept., 1834).

Besides the anniversary of the consecration of individual or parish churches, the anniversary of the consecration of the cathedral of a diocese is celebrated as a double of the first class with an octave by the secular clergy living within the limits of the cathedral city; the secular clergy living outside the cathedral city celebrate it as a double of the first class without an octave, the regular clergy living within the limits of the cathedral city celebrate it as a double of the second class without an octave; the regular clergy outside the cathedral city are not obliged to celebrate it in any manner (Cong. Sac. Rit., 9 July, 1895). In some dioceses the simultaneous celebration on a fixed day of the consecration of all the churches of a diocese, irrespective of the fact that some of the churches are not consecrated, is granted by special indult. In this case individual consecrated churches are not allowed to celebrate the anniversary of the consecration of their respective churches. This day of common celebration is a double of the first class for all the clergy in the diocese, with this distinction, that it is a primary feast for those attached to consecrated churches and a secondary feast for the others (Cong. Sac. Rit., 24 March, 1900).

Loss of Consecration

From the axiom in cannon law "Consecratio adhæret parietibus Eccelesiæ", it follows that a church loses its consecration (1) when the walls of the church are totally or in greater part simultaneously demolished; (2) when the inner walls are totally or in greater part simultaneously destroyed by fire; (3) when an addition is made to the walls of the church in length, breadth, or height, greater than the original walls.

V. CONSECRATION OF A CHALICE AND PATEN

The ordinary minister of the consecration of the chalice and paten used at Mass is a bishop. In missionary countries some priests, by Apostolic indult, have the privilege of consecrating these sacred vessels. The bishops of the United States have the faculty of delegating priests for performing this rite by virtue of the Facultates Extraordinariæ, C, VI. These two altar vessels must be consecrated before they can be used at the altar. They are always consecrated at the same time, because both are indispensable at the celebration of Mass, the paten for holding the Body of Christ and the chalice for containing the Precious Blood. Chalices which were formerly used for the offerings of wine made by the faithful, for the ornamentation of the altar, and at the administration of baptism, to give to the newly baptized a symbolical beverage composed of milk and honey, were not consecrated. The same is true of the patens used at present at the Communion of the faithful to prevent consecrated Particles from falling to the floor.

Chalices and patens may be consecrated on any day of the year and at any hour, without solemnity, although in many places this rite takes place after Mass and at the altar. First the paten is consecrated, probably because it is to hold the Sacred Host, which is consecrated before the Precious Blood, and because the species of bread is always mentioned before the species of wine. The function begins with an address to the faithful, or at least to the attendants, exhorting them to implore the blessing of God on the action the consecrator is about to perform. This is followed by a prayer that God may render the rite efficacious, after which the consecrator anoints the paten twice with holy chrism, from rim to rim, in the form of a cross, and rubs the oils over the whole upper side of it, reciting at the same time the consercratory form. The same ceremony with a special address, prayer, and form, is performed over the chalice, except that the consecrator anoints the inside of the chalice twice from rim to rim, and rubs the oil all over the inside of the cup. The consecrator then recites a prayer in which allusion is made to the symbolical meaning of the chalice and paten, the former of which, according to Benedict XIV (De Sacrificio Missæ, Sect. i, n 31), represents the tomb in which the body of Christ was laid, and the latter the stone with which the tomb was closed. Finally, he sprinkles both vessels with holy water, saying nothing.

It is difficult to determine when the Church began to consecrate chalices and patens. Some liturgists are of the opinion that the custom of doing so goes back to the time of St. Sixtus I (d. 127), who, by a decree, forbade any other than those constituted in Sacred orders to touch the sacred vessels (Rom. Breviary, 16 April). Even if this decree is authentic, it would probably only prove that the prohibition was made out of respect due to the vessels which contained the Sacred Species. Other refer to a passage of St. Ambrose (d. 397) in which he says that the vasa Ecclesiæ initiata may be sold for the relief of the poor. Commentators interpret initiata to mean not consecrata, but rather usa, or vessels which had been used for the sacred mysteries. The ancient canons and decrees decide the material of which chalices and patens must be made, but they do not say a word of the consecration, although they treat the consecration of churches, altars, bishops, etc.; hence we may conclude that chalices and patens were not consecrated by a special form before the thirteenth century.

Loss of Consecration

The chalice and paten lose their consecration (1) when they are regilt; (2) when they become battered or broken to such an extent that it would be unbecoming to use them; (3) when the slightest slit or break appears in the chalice near the bottom; not so, however, if the break be near the upper part, so that without fear of spilling its contents consecration can take place in it; (4) when a break appears in the paten so large that particles may fall through it.

A.J. SCHULTE

Consent (in Canon Law)

Consent is the deliberate agreement required of those concerned in legal transactions in order to legalize such actions. Words, deeds, writing, or silence hear witness to the existence of this consent. Completeness of consent is gauged not so much by the preliminaries of transactions as by their ratification, which is the psychological development of incipient consent, and gives consistency to legal transactions. The consent necessary to constitute contracts must be internal, external, mutual, and deliberate. Some authorities claim that contracts formed without any intention on the part of the contracting parties to oblige themselves are valid; others more rightly maintain the contrary, since the very essence of contracts embodies obligation. Consequently, whoever is unprepared to admit this obligation is in no position to make a contract. Two possible suppositions here present themselves. In the first the promise and intention of not assuming any obligation concern the same object under the same respect. Promises made in this way are utterly meaningless. In the second supposition the promise and intention of waiving the obligation refer to the same object under different respects. In such cases it is necessary to ascertain which of these two contrary tendencies of the will is dominant. If the intention of making a contract possess greater efficacy, the obligation thereunto corresponding unquestionably holds good. On the contrary, if the intention of accepting no obligation prevail, no contract can be formed. Finally, if one intention is just as efficacious as another, the formation of a contract would then involve quest for an unattainable result. Contracts made by individuals having absolutely no intention of abiding by the obligation connected therewith are altogether invalid, and the parties thus fictitiously contracting are bound to indemnify those whose interests thereby suffer. The contract in question must always be capable of begetting an obligation. It is not impossible to find genuine consent which is worthless for giving consistency to contracts either because it is nullified beforehand by positive law or because it is the result of error, fraud, or fear (see CONTRACT).

Error affecting the very nature of the contract, or concerning the substance of the object in question or a naturally substantial quality of the object, or one considered indispensable by the contracting parties, vitiates consent and invalidates contracts. Error regarding an accidental quality of the contract, or pertaining to the motive underlying the contract, or to its material object, is insufficient to vitiate consent or nullify contracts. In like manner fraud, whether introduced by one of the contracting parties or by an extern, for the sake of provoking consent in the other party, counteracts consent as often as such fraud circumscribes the nature of the contract, the substance of the object at stake, or a quality naturally substantiated in that object or esteemed as substantial by the one upon whom the fraud is perpetrated. As often as accidental fraud induces another, in some measure, to consent, he is at liberty to rescind the contract, provided it is naturally dissoluble. In general, grave fear lawfully superinduced does not militate against consent in the will, and therefore renders contracts neither invalid nor rescindable. On the other hand, while fear unlawfully superinduced to extort consent does not invalidate contracts, it gives the intimidated party the liberty of rescinding them. According to the civil law of the United States, no contract is binding without the mutual assent of both parties. They must assent at the same time and to the same thing. This mutual assent consists of an offer by one party and its acceptance by another. When the offer is verbal, and the time allowed for acceptance is not mentioned, the offer must be immediately accepted to constitute a contract. In case the offer and acceptance are written and pass through the mail, the contract is complete when the acceptance is mailed, provided the party accepting has received no notice of the withdrawal of the offer before mailing his letter. As far as the validity of matrimony is concerned, genuine, internal, personal consent of both parties, covering the present and indicated by external signs, is unquestionably required. While internal consent must be complemented by some external manifestation, words are by no means necessary. The Congregation of the Inquisition (22 August, 1860) decided that marriages are entirely valid when the ceremony takes place in the presence of witnesses and according to the custom of the country in a manner which indicates that the contracting parties here and now mutually agree to enter wedlock. At the same time, if one or both contracting parties have no present intention of marrying in circumstances such as those outlined, they can make no marriage contract. The required matrimonial consent signified by proxy does not militate against the validity of the marriage contract. This consent must include the material object of the matrimonial contract, which material object is the mutual right of one party to the body of the other, a right that carries with it every prerogative vested therein by the laws of nature. It is not necessary, however, that the intention of parties to a marriage contract should be explicitly directed to all its conditions or circumstances. On the contrary, an intention implicitly thereunto directed is entirely sufficient for all practical intents and purposes. Hence, as often as marriageable parties intend to contract marriage in the way in which men and women ordinarily understand that agreement, or according to the way in which it was instituted by the Author of this sacrament, they exhibit consent sufficient to render their marriage contract entirely valid, provided nothing essential is positively excluded by a counter intention usurping the place of the chief, indispensable intention in entering matrimony. While marriage contracts are null unless based on the consent of those concerned, it is usually very difficult to establish the actual absence of this consent so as to satisfy the judge in a matrimonial court, once the marriage ceremony has really taken place. (For the renewal of consent in the case of invalid marriages, see REVALIDATION, and for the consent requisite for espousals, see ESPOUSALS.) While in canon law the consent of parents is not necessary to validate the marriages of their children, it is usually required to render such marriages legitimate. [For the civil law concerning the consent of parents in France (modified 1907), Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, etc., see MARRIAGE.]

In the United States the common law exacts no solemnity to validate matrimonial consent. In many of the States, however, special statutes carrying a penalty require certain conditions for the legitimacy of such consent. Common law regards marriage as a civil contract for which consent alone is essential. It demands no legal forms, nor religious solemnities, nor special mode of proof. According to common law, consent indicated by words covering the present, whether consummation follows or not, or by words pertaining to the future together with consummation, constitutes a valid marriage. In New York, Illinois, and Rhode Island words pertaining to the future, even with subsequent consummation, no longer render a marriage valid. Even without explicit proof of words implying consent, cohabitation, acknowledgment of a marriage by the parties concerned, reception of such parties as husband and wife by relatives, friends, or society, are sufficient to establish a valid marriage.

Canon law requires the consent of cathedral chapters to lend validity to certain official acts of bishops. In general, this consent is necessary in such matters as usually involve a serious obligation or the possibility of a notable damage, or in matters which simultaneously pertain to bishops and their chapters. Nevertheless, unwritten law can narrow the rights of chapters and widen the liberty of bishops in these matters unless circumstances conspire to stamp particular measures as unreasonable. In like manner, unwritten law may exact the consent of chapters in matters of secondary importance, a requirement sometimes enjoined by special statutes. When immediate action is necessary, and it is impossible to convoke their chapters, bishops may proceed validly without the chapters' consent. Inasmuch as there are no cathedral chapters in the United States, diocesan consultors constitute the advisory board of the bishops. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore specifies several instances in which the bishops, though not obliged to abide by the advice of their consultors, are bound to seek such advice, else their acts in such cases are liable to nullification.

For consent in its relation to sinful acts, see SIN, and for the consent of the legislative authority in the formation of consuetudinary law, see CUSTOM.

OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris pontificii (Prato, 1904); Instructio Pastoralis Eyestettensis (Freiburg, 1902), index, s. v. Consensus; HEINER, Grundriss des kath. Eherechts (Münster, 1905), index, s. v. Konsens; HERGENRÖTHER-HOLLWECK, Lehrbuck des kath. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1905), index, s. v. Consensus; PERMANEDER in Kirchenlex., III, 956 sqq., and in general all manuals and dictionaries of canon, civil (Roman), and national legislations. For the history of consent in all that pertains to the marriage contract, ESMEIN, Le Mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, in index s. v. Consentement.

J. D. O'NEILL.

Consentius

The name of a fifth-century Gallo-Roman family, three of whose representatives are known in history:

(1) CONSENTIUS OF NARBONNE, clarissimus, "who combined the honour of a prefecture with philosophy", was a correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris, who dedicated to him a poem on Narbonne. He used all metres — iambic, elegiac, hendecasyllabic, and the hexameter — and wrote in Greek as well as in Latin. His poems are redolent of flowers and thyme (Sidonius, Carm., xxiii, 20, and 234-240; Epist., III, 6; VIII, 4; IX, 15). However, these praises must not he taken too literally, as Sidonius counted among his friends thirty men who were similarly gifted. The authors of the "Histoire littéraire de la France" make a distinction between the Consentius to whom the poem was dedicated and Consentius the epistolary author, maintaining the former to have been the father of the latter.

(2) CONSENTIUS, father of the former, a native of Narbonne and a poet, a contemporary of Valentinian, and son-in-law of Flavius Valens Jovinus, consul in 367.

(3) CONSENTIUS, a Gallic grammarian, was the author of two treatises, which are perhaps the fragments of a complete grammar: one on the noun and the verb, much used during the Carlovingian period, and the other on barbarisms and metaplasm. An edition of these treatises has been published by Keil in "Grammatici Latini" (Leipzig), vol. V, p. 336.

Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris. 1735), II, 249-50, 431- 33, 653-56; TEUFFEL, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1890); KEIL, Grammatici Latini (1885), V. 338, 404.

PAUL LEJAY.

Conservator

(From Lat. conservare)

A Conservator is a judge delegated by the pope to defend certain privileged classes of persons — as universities, religious orders, chapters, the poor — from manifest or notorious injury or violence, without recourse to a judicial process. Conservators were appointed as early as the thirteenth century. Innocent IV presupposes their existence in the decree (c. 15, de off. et pot. jud., del. I, 14, in VIº) from which we first learn their power. Owing to abuses and complaints the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v, de ref.) limited their jurisdiction, but new controversies, often recurring, caused Clement VIII, Gregory XV, and Innocent X to define their privileges more precisely. Troubles continuing to arise, especially concerning the conservators of religious orders, Clement XIII (23 April, 1762) decreed that in missionary countries such officials should no longer be chosen, but that all controversies should be referred to the Holy See. From that time forth conservators fell into practical desuetude. According to law, these officials were to be chosen from among the prelates or dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate churches; later from the synodal judges. When a conservator had been chosen by regulars he could not be removed for five years without cause. He had no jurisdiction in cases that required juridical examination. While he took cognizance of all complaints against regulars, he had no authority to receive those of the regulars against others unless they were notorious. In the latter case the conservator decided the question summarily. He could punish with ecclesiastical penalties even high church dignitaries who interfered with his duties. His power was limited, however, to the one diocese in which be had been elected, nor could the same conservator have power in several dioceses.

ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can. (3d ed., Paris, 1901), I; WERNZ. Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II; BOUIX, De Jure Regular. (3d ed., Paris, 1883), II.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING.

Papal Consistory

I. DEFINITION

During the Roman imperial epoch the term consistorium (Lat. con-sistere, to stand together) was used to designate the sacred council of the emperors. In time it came to designate the senate of the Roman pontiff, that is, "the assemblage of the Cardinals in council around the Pope" (Innocent III to the Bishop of Ely and the Archdeacon of Norwich, in 1212; see Gonzalez, "Commentaria in textus decretalium Gregorii IX", III, vii, 108).

II. ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The origin of the papal consistory is closely connected with the history of the Roman presbytery or body of the Roman clergy. In the old Roman presbyterium there were deacons, in charge of the ecclesiastical temporalities in the various regions of Rome; priests, at the head of the principal churches of the city, called tituli; and (at least by the eighth century) the bishops of the dioceses in the neighborhood of Rome. The cardinals of today (divided likewise into the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons) have succeeded the members of the ancient presbytery not only in the offices attaching to these three grades, though with somewhat different functions, but also, and chiefly, in the capacity of assisting the pope in the management of ecclesiastical affairs.

From the earliest Christian times the popes were wont to confer with the Roman presbytery on matters affecting the interests of the Church. From a letter of Pope Cornelius (254-255) to St. Cyprian we learn that he had summoned his presbytery before agreeing to the reconciliation of three schismatics. Likewise, Pope Liberius (352-363) informed the Roman clergy about the course of action he had deemed advisable to take during his exile. Pope Siricius (384-398) condemned the heresy of Jovinian after having convoked his presbytery. How far the more prominent members of the Roman clergy, eventually called cardinals, were being gradually entrusted with the management of ecclesiastical affairs is shown by the action of Leo IV and John VIII in the ninth century. The former ordered that the Roman cardinals should meet twice a week in the Sacred Palace to provide for the administration of the churches, look after the discipline of the clergy, and decide the cases of laymen. The latter ordered them to meet at least twice a month in order to take cognizance of and decide cases of clerics and laymen brought before the pope's tribunal. For many centuries, however, the Roman presbytery did not form the senate of the popes to the exclusion of all other clerics, at least in matters of greater importance. These matters were discussed and decided in the Roman council, which, though admitting the Roman clergy to an active part, consisted chiefly of bishops summoned by the pope from the greater part of Italy, as well as of other bishops who happened to be in Rome at the time. These councils were very frequent until the beginning of the twelfth century. Thenceforth, the popes held them more rarely finding it difficult to convoke them as often as the ever increasing volume of business demanded. In their stead the popes transacted the affairs brought before their court in the presence and with the assistance of the Roman cardinals, who about the same time had grown in dignity and importance, owing to the fact that the right o electing the pope now rested in them exclusively. Thus the Sacred College of Cardinals, assembled in consistory, became the chief organ of the supreme and universal government of the Church.

At first, matters of judicial as well as of administrative character were referred to the consistory. In course of time, however, the former were transferred to the Tribunal of the Sacred Rota. The "Corpus Juris" contains many of the decisions given by the popes in consistory, as is evidenced by the frequent formula de fratrun nostrorum consilio (with the advice of our brethren). The papal consistory has continued ever since to act as the supreme council of the popes, though it lost much of its importance when in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Roman Congregations were instituted. The amount of business brought before the Holy See had gradually increased to such a vast extent that it had to be divided among several particular committees of cardinals. These committees were at first temporary but gradually became permanent, and to each of them a definite kind of ecclesiastical affairs was assigned. These permanent committees came to be known as congregations. The first of them was instituted by Paul III, others by Pius IV and Pius V, but most of them owe their origin to Sixtus V. Once the Roman Congregations, embracing in their scope almost the whole range of ecclesiastical affairs, were instituted, it was but natural that the papal consistory should lose in importance. However, it did not go into desuetude altogether; it continued to be held, but more rarely, and only in the form which me proceed to describe.

III. PRESENT PRACTICE

Consistories are of three kinds: secret or ordinary, public or extraordinary and semi-public.

(1) The secret consistory is so called because no one save the pope and the cardinals is present at its deliberations. Formerly it was customary for the pope, soon after entering the hall of consistory, to confer singly with the cardinals on such personal matters as they wished to bring before him, and it was only after this audience was over that nobles and prelates were excluded from the hall. But at the present day this audience is omitted. The consistory is frequently opened with an address, or allocution, in which the pope often reviews the condition of the Church in general or in some particular country, pointing out what deserves praise or needs to be condemned. Such allocutions are afterwards given to the public in order that the world at large may know the mind of the pope on these matters. At the end of the allocution the creation of new cardinals takes place. The pope announces the names of those whom he intends to raise to the cardinalate, and asks the cardinals for their opinion; the cardinals remove their caps as a sign of consent, and the pope proceeds immediately to the formal appointment. It is also in the secret consistory that the cardinals receive from the pope the cardinal's ring, are appointed to some titular church or deaconry, exercise the option of passing from one titular church to another, and of ascending from the order of deacons and priests to the order of priests and bishops respectively. It is also here that the pope appoints the camerlengo and the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, and performs the ceremony of "closing" and "opening" the mouth of the new cardinals. To this consistory belong also the appointments of bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs, the transfers of these dignitaries from one see to another, the appointments of coadjutors, the creation and announcement of new dioceses, the division and union of dioceses already existing. But the etails are not discussed in the consistory itself. All the previous consultations that are required in order that the pope may come to a prudent conclusion have taken place in a congregation called consistorial, and the pope in the consistory itself only gives his decision. There are some sees whose bishops are appointed through a Brief outside the consistory. Such are those in territories depending on the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, and others as necessity may require. These appointments are merely promulgated in the secret consistory. At the end of the consistory the advocates called consistorial are admitted to request, with the usual formalities, the pallium for newly appointed archbishops; their petition is granted immediately, but the conferring of the pallium takes place later.

(2) The public consistory is so called because persons foreign to the Sacred College of Cardinals, such as Apostolic prothonotaries, the auditors of the Sacred Rota, and other prelates are called to it. Laymen also, who have made previous application, are permitted to be present. Formerly, in this consistory the pope used to give solemn reception to kings, princes, and ambassadors; but this is no longer the custom. In the public consistory the pope performs the ceremony of delivering the red hat to the newly created cardinals. Moreover, the consistorial advocates plead here the causes of beatification and canonization. These pleadings are of two kinds. In the first permission is asked that the ordinary process of beatification or canonization may be introduced, or continued, or brought to completion. The second has reference only to causes of canonization. For in accordance with the practice of the Holy See, even after it has been conclusively proved that the miracles required for canonization have been performed through the intercession of one declared blessed, the honours of a saint are not decreed to him, unless the question as to whether canonization should take place has been treated in three consistories: secret, public, and semi-public. In the secret consistory the pope asks the opinions of the cardinals, who express it singly by answering placet or non placet (aye or no). In the public consistory one of the consistorial advocates pleads the cause and a prelate answers in the pope's name, inviting all to pray in order that the pope may be enlightened on the subject. The final voting takes place in the semi-public consistory.

(3) The semi-public consistory is so called because, besides the cardinals, bishops also take part in it. To this consistory the bishops residing within one hundred miles of Rome are summoned, while invitations are sent to all the other bishops of Italy; moreover, titular patriarchs and archbishops and bishops who live in Rome, as well as bishops who happen to be sojourning there at the time, are likewise present. After all the Fathers have expressed their opinions on the subject, the pope closes the assembly with an address on the following canonization. With regard to the time for holding the consistories, the old practice of assembling them at fixed intervals has passed out of use and today they meet, as occasion demands, at the pope's wish.

Hilling, Procedure at the Roman Curia (New York, 1907); Baart, The Roman Court (New York, 1895); Humphrey, Urbs et Orbis; or The Pope as Bishop and as Pontiff (London, 1899); Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1895), I, 270; Hergenr"ther-Hollweck, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 292; Von Scherer, Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 481; Andr‚-Wagner Dict. de Droit Canon. (Paris 1901), I, 555; Wernz, Jus Decretalium (Rome 1906), II, 394; Cohellius, Notitia Cardinalatus (Rome, 1653); Lega, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1898), II, 253.

Hector Papi

Cuthbert Constable

(Formerly TUNSTALL)

Date of birth uncertain; d. 27 March, 1746. He was the son of Francis Tunstall of Wycliffe Hall, Yorkshire, England, and Cicely, daughter of John Constable, second Viscount Dunbar. When in 1718 he succeeded, on the death of his uncle, the last Viscount Dunbar, to the estates of Burton Constable, he changed his surname from Tunstall to Constable. He was educated at Douai and subsequently studied medicine at Montpellier, where he took the degree of Doctor of Medicine. He formed a large collection of books and MSS. at Burton Constable, and in other ways was a constant patron of Catholic literature, assisting Bishop Challoner by lending him documents for the "Memoirs of Missionary Priests", and Dodd, by contributing to the expenses of the "History of the Church of England". He also maintained friendly relations with non-Catholic scholars; and among the Burton Constable papers are two volumes of his correspondence with Mr. Nicholson of University College, Oxford, and the well-known antiquary, Thomas Hearne. His correspondence with the former was chiefly concerned with particulars for the biography of Abraham Woodhead, for whom he had a great veneration. His only publication is a life of Woodhead prefixed to his edition of "The Third Part of the Brief Account of Church Government", written by that author (London, 1736). Gillow (Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 549) states that even this was largely taken from Nicholson, but is valuable for the complete Woodhead bibliography. The other works enumerated by Gillow (loc. cit.) are not by Constable, but were MSS. in his collection. The collection itself was sold by auction in 1889, some of the MSS. being purchased by Lord Herries and added to his collection at Everingham. Constable was twice married, first to Amy, daughter of Hugh, third Lord Clifford, by whom he had three children, William, Cicely, and Winifred, and secondly to Elizabeth Heneage, by whom he had one son, Marmaduke, who inherited the estate of Wycliffe and resumed the family name of Tunstall.

EDWIN BURTON

John Constable

(Alias Lacey).

Controversialist (pen-name Clerophilus Alethes), b. in Lincolnshire, 10 November, 1676 or 1678; d. 28 March, 1743. In 1695 he entered the Society of Jesus. For many years he served the Fitzherbert family at Swinnerton, where he is buried. Constable's chief controversial opponents were:

• the Abbé Courayer (1681-1776; Dict. Nat. Biog. XII, 328) who championed Anglican orders, came over to England in 1728, was lionized, and eventually buried in the cloisters of Westminster; and
• Charles Dodd vere Hugh Tootell, who wrote with a prejudice against Jesuits.

The chief writings of Constable are:

• "Remarks on Courayer's Book in Defense of English Ordinations, wherein their invalidity is fully proved", an answer to Courayer's "Dissertations" of 1723;
• "The Stratagem Discovered to show that Courayer writes 'Booty', and is only a sham defender of these ordinations", by "Clerophilus Alethes" (8vo, 1729), against Rev. Trapp's "Defense of the Church of England";
• "Doctrine of Antiquity concerning the Eucharist" by "Clerophilus Alethes" (8vo, 1736);
• "Specimen of Amendments proposed to the Complier of 'The Church History of England'", by "Clerophilus Alethes" (12mo, 1741);
• "Advice to the Author of 'The Church History of England'", manuscript at Stonyhurst.

Gillow enumerates a few other writings by Constable.

Oliver, Collectanea S.J., 73; Foley, Records S.J., III, 207; VII (i), 159; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., II col. 1374; Gillow, Dict. of Eng. Cath., I, 552, sqq.; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 36.

PATRICK RYAN

Constance

(Lat. Constantia, Ger. Konstanz or Constanz, Czechic name Kostnitz).

Formerly the seat of a diocese. Constance, a very ancient town situated where the River Rhine flows out of the Bodensee (between the Bodensee and the Untersee) in the south-eastern part of the Grand Duchy of Baden, was originally a village of lake-dwellers which under Roman rule was fortified by Constantius Chlorus in 304. Christianity seems to have been introduced into Constance and the neighbouring country by Roman legionaries as early as the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. The episcopal see was first at Vindonissa, the present Windisch in the Canton of Aargau in Switzerland. It is not known when this see was erected. The first bishop of whom history has preserved any record is Bubulcus who was present at the Burgundian Synod of Epaon in 517. (Mansi, Ampl. Coll. Conc., VIII, 565.) He was succeeded by Grammatius, who attended a Frankish synod at Clermont in 535 (ibid., VIII, 863), one at Orléans in 541 (ibid., IX, 120), and a third at Orléans in 549 (ibid., IX, 136). After this time history makes no further mention of the Diocese of Vindonissa. Since, however, the neighbouring city of Constance is for the first time mentioned as an episcopal see about this time, it becomes almost a certainty that from Vindonissa the see was transferred to Constance. The episcopal catalogues of Constance designate Maximus as the first and Rudolph as the second bishop, but nothing further is known about them. Walafrid Strabo, in his "Vita S. Galli", speaks of certain Gaudentius as Bishop of Constance, after whose death (c. 613) the bishopric was offered to St. Gall who, however, refused the dignity and recommended his disciple John in his stead. The sermon which St. Gall preached at John's consecration is still extant (H. Canisius, "Antiquæ Lectiones", edited by Basnage, "Thesaurus monum. eccl. et hist.", Antwerp, 1725, I, 785). Nothing is known of Marcian, Boso, Gangolf, Fidelis, and Rudolph, who are generally designated as successors of John.

The limits of the Diocese of Constance were fixed during the seventh century. The river Iller separated it from the Diocese of Augsburg. From the influx of the Iller into the Danube the boundary turned towards the north-west past Gmünd, across the Neckar, north of Marbach, thence south-westerly till it reached the Rhine south of Breisach (Altbreisach). It followed the Rhine upward to the influx of the Aar, then up this river to the St. Gotthard, whence it turned north-easterly across Canton St. Gall to the source of the Iller. The dioceses surrounding it were Augsburg, Speyer, Strasburg, Basle, Lausanne, Chur, and (since 742) Würzburg. There was not a diocese in Germany which surpassed Constance either in area or population. It belonged to the province of Besançon until it became a suffragan of Mainz in 747. With few changes it retained the above-mentioned dimensions till the time of the Reformation. In the year 1435 the diocese had 17,060 priests, 1760 parishes, and 350 monasteries and convents. During the eighth and ninth centuries the bishops of Constance repeatedly infringed upon the rights of the Abbots of Reichenau and St. Gall and sometimes combined the abbatial with the episcopal dignity. Bishop Sidonius (746-760) was instrumental in the unjust deposition and imprisonment of St. Othmar, the Abbot of St. Gall, in 758 or 759 (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 596). Most bishops of the tenth century were great and holy men. Solomon III (890-919) had previously (885) been imperial chancellor and was equally beloved as Abbot of Reichenau and St. Gall and as Bishop of Constance. St. Conrad (934-975) was a great friend of the poor, made three pilgrimages to the Holy Land, built three new churches and renovated many old ones. He was canonized in 1123 and became patron of the diocese. St. Gebhard II (979-995) founded the Abbey of Petershausen in 983, began to be honoured as a saint soon after his death, and became patron of the city of Constance. During the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV, concerning the right of investiture, the episcopal See of Constance was occupied by Otto I (1071-1086), who sided with the emperor and was excommunicated because he took part in the deposition of Gregory VII at the Synod of Worms (1076). His successor Gebhard III (1084-1110) was an intrepid defender of the papal rights against Henry V, became Vicar Apostolic for Germany under Urban II (Mansi, Ampl. Coll. Conc., XX, 666 and 715), consecrated the new cathedral at Constance in 1089, held a synod in 1094, at which wholesome ecclesiastical reforms were decreed, and with the consent of the pope freed Henry V from the ban in 1095. During the papal conflicts with the Emperors Frederick I and Frederick II the bishops sided with the emperors until Bishop Henry I, von Thann (1233-1248) returned to papal allegiance in 1246. Bishop Rudolph von Montfort (1322-1334) supported Pope John XXII in his struggle against Louis the Bavarian until 1332, when he joined the party of the emperor. His successor Nicholas, von Kreuzlingen (1334-1344), sided with the popes. While the Council of Constance was in session (1414-1418) the episcopal see of Constance was occupied by Otto III, von Hochberg (1411-1434). From the thirteenth century the bishops of Constance were princes of the German Empire. Their territory, as temporal rulers, extended over twenty-two German (about 482 English) square miles, with a population of about 50,000, and lasted until it was divided between Baden and Switzerland in 1802.

The decline of the diocese begins with the Protestant Reformation. The Swiss Cantons Zurich, Bern, St. Gall, Schaffhausen, and Thurgau were first to adopt the new doctrine (Zwinglianism). They were followed in 1526 by the city of Constance and in 1534 by the Duchy of Würtemberg. Baden became Protestant in 1556, but here the Catholic religion was restored in 1571. The old Faith was also slowly restored in the city of Constance from 1548 when that city came under Austrian rule. From 1526 the bishops of Constance resided at Meersburg. Despite the great losses sustained during the Reformation, the diocese in 1750 still numbered 3774 secular priests, 2764 monks, 3147 nuns, and a Catholic population of 891,948. In 1814 the portion of the diocese situated on Swiss territory was detached and apportioned to the Swiss dioceses of Chur, Basle, and St. Gall. After the death of Bishop Karl Theodor von Dalberg in 1817, the portion of the diocese lying in Würtemberg came under the jurisdiction of the vicar-general of Ellwangen-Rottenburg, and all the Bavarian territory was attached to the Diocese of Augsburg. In 1821 Pope Pius VII dissolved the Diocese of Constance and joined its remaining territory to the newly erected Archdiocese of Freiburg. The most important rulers of the diocese since the Reformation were: Cardinal Marcus Sitticus von Hohenems (Altemps), 1561-1589; Cardinal Andrew of Austria (1589-1600), Jacob Fugger (1604-1626), Karl Theodor von Dalberg (1810-1817) and his Vicar-General Heinrich Ignaz von Wessenberg. The last two espoused the doctrine of Febronius. Dalberg joined the Freemasons and the Illuminati, of whose real tendendcies he was ignorant, and Wessenberg was heart and soul for the anti-ecclesiastical reforms of Emperor Joseph II.

The city of Constance received municipal rights in 780, became a free imperial city in 1192 and was one of the largest and most flourishing cities of Germany during the Middle Ages. Its population is said to have exceeded 40,000. Here the famous Peace of Constance, a treaty between Barbarossa and the Lombard cities was declared in 1183 and an imperial diet was convened by Maximilian I in 1507. Commercially it was highly important on account of its manufacture of choice linen the famous tela di Costanza which was known throughout Europe. Its ecclesiastical renown it owes to the fact that it was the seat of perhaps the largest diocese in Germany and that from 1414-18 the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council was celebrated there. For joining the Smalkaldic League and refusing to accept the Interim of Augsburg in 1548, it was deprived of its privileges as a free and imperial city and given to Austria by Emperor Charles V. It was unsuccessfully besieged by the Swedes in 1633, pillaged by the French (1740-45), and finally joined to Baden in 1805. Its population in 1900 consisted of 15,917 Catholics, 711 Old Catholics, and 565 Jews.

Merck, Chronik des Bisthums Konstanz (Constance, 1627); Neugart, Episcopatus Constantiensis (to 1306), (St. Blasien, 1803 and Freiburg, 1862); Idem, Codex Diplomaticus (St. Blasien, 1791-5); Ladewig, Regesta Episcoporum Constantiensium (in German) von Bubulcus bis Thomas Berlower, 517-1496 (Innsbruck, 1886-90); Ludwig, Die Konstanzer Geschichtsschreibung bis zum 18. Jahrh. (Strasburg, 1894). For the city of Constance: Eiselein, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Stadt Konstanz (Constance 1851); Beyerle, Konstanz im 30-jährigen Krieg (1900); Idem, Grundeigenthumsverhältnisse und Bürgerrecht im mittelalterlichen Konstanz (1900-02).

MICHAEL OTT

Council of Constance

A (partly) ecumenical council held at Constance, now in the Grand Duchy of Baden, from 5 Nov., 1414, to 22 April, 1418. Its forty-five general sessions were devoted to three chief purposes:

I. THE EXTINCTION OF THE SO-CALLED WESTERN SCHISM

In its attempt to restore to the Church her immemorial unity of headship the Council of Pisa in 1409 had only added to the confusion and scandal that afflicted all Christendom since 1378 (see WESTERN SCHISM). There were now three popes, the two deposed by the council (Gregory XII and Benedict XIII) and its own creation, Alexander V; the latter soon died (3 May, 1410) and was succeeded by Cardinal Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII. Obedient to a decree of the Council of Pisa that ordered a general council every three years, this pope convoked such an assembly at Rome for April, 1412, but with so little success that it was prorogued and again convoked for the beginning of 1413; its only important decree was a condemnation of the writings of Wyclif. In the meantime the treachery and violence of Ladislaus of Naples made John XXIII quite dependent politically on the new Emperor-elect Sigismund whose anxiety for a general council on German territory was finally satisfied by the pope, then an exile from Rome. He convoked it from Lodi, 9 December, 1413, for 1 November, 1414, at Constance, a free city of the empire, on Lake Constance. It was solemnly opened 5 November in the cathedral of Constance, where all the public sessions were held. The first public session took place 16 November under the presidency of John XXIII, and for a while it considered itself a continuation of the Council of Pisa, and John XXIII the sole legitimate pope. It was soon evident, however, that many members of the new assembly (comparatively few bishops, many doctors of theology and of canon and civil law, procurators of bishops, deputies of universities, cathedral chapters, provosts, etc., agents and representatives of princes, etc.) favoured strongly the voluntary abdication of all three popes. This was also the idea of Emperor Sigismund (q. v;) present since Christmas Eve, 1414, and destined to exercise a profound and continuous influence on the course of the council in his character of imperial protector of the Church; The French deputies especially urged this solution of the intolerable crisis, under the leadership of Pierre d'Ailly (Cardinal and Bishop of Cambrai), Guillaume Fillastre (Cardinal and Bishop of San Marco), and Jean Charlier de Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, representative of the French king, and known with d'Ailly, as "the soul of the council". The Italian bishops who had accompanied John XXIII in large numbers and stood for his legitimacy were soon rendered helpless by new methods of discussion and voting. Early in January, 1415, envoys of Benedict XIII appeared, but only to propose a personal meeting at Nice of their pope and the emperor. Towards the end of the month Gregory XII (Angelo Corrario) offered, through his representatives, to resign, on condition that the other popes did the same. The execution of this project, henceforth the main object of the council, was long delayed for reasons that will appear below. Pressure was at once brought to bear on John XXIII by Emperor Sigismund and by the non-Italian members. His resistance was finally broken by the resolution of the members to vote by "nations" and not by persons. The legality of this measure, an imitation of the "nations" of the universities, was more than questionable, but during February, 1415, it was carried through and thenceforth accepted in practice, though never authorized by any formal decree of the council (Finke, Forschungen, 31-33) and opposed by d'Ailly and Fillastre, who wanted, indeed, a considerable enlargement of the voting body, by the inclusion of professors (doctors) of theology, parish priests, etc., but not the abandonment of the traditional individual vote; the former was willing to compromise on a vote according to ecclesiastical provinces. The vote by nations was in great measure the work of the English, German, and French members, but the Italians did not long resist, and on this basis the council's work was organized and executed as follows: By each of the four nations represented at the council, i.e. Germans (with whom were counted the few Poles, Hungarians, Danes, and Scandinavians), English, French, and Italians, several deputies, ecclesiastical and lay, were appointed to represent the entire membership of the nation present at Constance. These national deputies met separately under a president of their own choice, but changed from month to month. Their decisions were reached by a majority vote, and were then communicated to the General Congregation of all four nations in which the vote of a majority (three) was decisive; There seems also to have been (Finke, Forschungen, 36-37) an important general committee appointed by the nations to prepare the subjects of discussion for the individual nations, and to act generally as intermediary. At the seventh session (2 May, 1415) the right to vote apart was withdrawn from the cardinals; henceforth they could only vote like other individuai deputies in the meetings of their respective nations. The Roman Church, therefore, was not represented as such, while the small English nation (20 deputies, 3 bishops) was equal in influence to the entire Italian representation, as individuals about one-half the council. The decisions of the general congregations were presented at the public sessions of the council and there promulgated, unanimously, as conciliar decrees.

While these measures were being taken John XXIII grew daily more suspicious of the council. Nevertheless, and partly in consequence of a fierce anonymous attack, from an Italian source, on his life and character, he promised under oath (2 March, 1415) to resign. On 20 March, however, he secretly fled from Constance and took refuge at Schaffhausen on territory of his friend Frederick, Duke of Austria-Tyrol. This step filled the council with consternation, for it threatened both its existence and its authority. Emperor Sigismund, however, held together the wavering assembly. Then followed the public sessions (third to fifth) of 26 and 30 March and 5 April out of which came the famous decrees "Articles of Constance", long a chief argument of Gallicanism (q. v.). As finally adopted in the fifth session they were five in number and declared that the council, legitimately called in the Holy Spirit, is a general council, represents the whole Church Militant, has its authority directly from God; and that in all that pertains to faith, the extinction of the schism and reformation in head and members, every Christian, even the pope, is bound to obey it; that in case of refusal to obey the council all recalcitrant Christians (even the pope) are subject to ecclesiastical punishment and in case of necessity to other (civil) sanctions; that without the consent of the council Pope John cannot call away from Constance the Roman Curia and its officials, whose absence might compel the closing of the council or hinder its work; that all censures inflicted since his departure by the pope on members and supporters of the council are void, and that Pope John and the members of the council have hitherto enjoyed full liberty. In the meantime (29 March, 1415) the English, German, and French nations had agreed to four articles, in the first two of which was expressed the complete supremacy of the council over the pope; these two were incorporated in the aforesaid articles of the fifth session. It has been maintained that these decrees were meant only for the extraordinary situation which then faced the council; they express, nevertheless, the well-known persuasion of the majority of the peculiar ecclesiastical representation at Constance that the council, independently of the pope, was the final depository of supreme ecclesiastical authority; indeed, by virtue of these decrees they proceeded at once to judge and depose John XXIII, hitherto for them the legitimate pope. It is to be noted that of the twelve cardinals present at Constance only seven or eight assisted at the fifth session, and they solely to avoid scandal (among the absent was d'Ailly). Nor would any cardinal announce these decrees; that office fell to a bishop, Andrew of Posen. The emperor was present at their promulgation, also 200 members, mostly doctors, etc. These decrees it must be remembered, though adopted at Basle and often quoted by the disciples of Gallicanism and other opponents of papal supremacy, were formulated and accepted at Constance amid quite unusual circumstances, in much haste, and in quasi despair at the threatened failure of the long-desired general council; they ran counter to the immemorial praxis of the Church, and substituted for its Divine constitution the will of the multitude or at best a kind of theological parliamentarism. They were never approved by the Apostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Paderborn, 1897, I, 489-98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200). The rest of March, and the months of April and May were consumed in a tragic conflict of the council with John XXIII. He did not withdraw his resignation, but posited conditions that the council refused; he called away from Constance several cardinals and members of the Curia, who were soon, however, obliged to return; put forth a plea of lack of liberty; complained to the King of France concerning the method of voting, as well as his treatment by the council and the emperor; and finally fled from Schaffhausen to Lauenburg, giving the council reason to fear either his final escape from imperial reach or the withdrawal of the Italian representatives. The pope soon fled again, this time to Freiburg in the Breisgau, and thence to Breisach on the Rhine, but was soon compelled to return to Freiburg, whence eventually (17 May) he was brought by deputies of the council to the vicinity of Constance, and there held prisoner, while the council proceeded to his trial. He had exhausted all means of resistance, and was morally vanquished. Unwilling to undergo the ordeal of the impending trial he renounced all right of defence and threw himself on the mercy of the council. He was deposed in the twelfth session (29 Mar, 1415), not for heresy but for notorious simony, abetting of schism, and scandalous life, having already been suspended by the council in the tenth session (14 May). Two days later he ratified under oath the action of the council and was condemned to indefinite imprisonment in the custody of the emperor. He was held successively in the castles of Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mannheim, but was eventually released, for a heavy ransom, with the help of Martin V, and in 1419 died at Florence as Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum. (For a fuller treatment of the charges against him, see JOHN XXIII.) The promised resignation of Gregory XII was now in order, and was accomplished with the dignity to be expected from the pope usually considered by Catholic historians the legitimate occupant of. the See of Peter, though at this time his obedience had practically vanished, being confined to Rimini and a few German dioceses. Through his protector and plenipotentiary, Carlo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, he posited as conditions that the council should be reconvoked by himself, and that in the session which accepted his resignation neither Baldassare Cossa nor any representative of him should preside. The council agreed to these conditions. The fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) had, therefore, for its president the Emperor Sigismund, whereby it appeared, as the supporters of Gregory wished it to appear, that hitherto the council was an assembly convoked by the civil authority. The famous Dominican Cardinal John of Ragusa (Johannes Dominici), friend and adviser of Gregory XII, and since 19 Dec., 1414, the pope's representative at Constance, convoked anew the council in the pope's name and authorized its future acts. The reunion of both obediences (Gregory XII and John XXIII) was then proclaimed, whereupon the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia (Viviers) assumed the presidency, and Malatesta pronounced, in the name of Gregory, the latter's abdication of all right whatsoever to the papacy. Gregory confirmed these acts in the seventeenth session (14 July) and was himself confirmed as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, Dean of the Sacred College and perpetual Legate of Ancona, in which position he died (18 Oct., 1417) at Recanati, in his ninetieth year in the odour of sanctity. From the fourteenth session, in which he convoked the council, it is considered by many with Phillips (Kirchenrecht, I, 256) a legitimate general council.

There remained now to obtain the resignation of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna). For this purpose, and because he insisted on personal dealings with himself, Emperor Sigismund and deputies of the council went to Perpignan, then Spanish territory, to confer with him, but the stubborn old man, despite his pretended willingness to resign, was not to be moved (Sept.-Oct., 1415) from the claims he had so persistently and amid so great vicissitudes defended. Soon, however, he was abandoned by the Rings of Aragon, Castile, and Navarre, hitherto his chief supporters. By the Treaty of Narbonne (13 Dec., 1415), they bound themselves to co-operate with the Council of Constance for the deposition of Benedict and the election of a new pope. St. Vincent Ferrer (q. v.) hitherto the main support of Benedict, and his confessor, now gave him up as a perjurer; the council confirmed (4 Feb., 1416) the articles of Narbonne, the immediate execution of which was retarded, among other causes, by the flight of Benedict (13 Nov., 1415) from the fortress of Perpignan to the inaccessible rock of Peñiscola on the sea-coast near Valencia, where he died in 1423, maintaining to the end his good right (see LUNA, PEDRO DE).

Various causes, as just said, held back the appearance of the Spanish deputies at the council. Finally they arrived at Constance for the twenty-first session (15 Oct., 1416) and were thenceforth counted as the fifth nation (Fromme, Die spanische Nation und das Konzil von Konstanz, Münster, 1896). The next eight months were largely taken up with complicated canonical procedure destined to compel the abdication or justify the deposition of Benedict XIII, who in the meantime had excommunicated solemnly his former royal adherents and with a courage worthy of a better cause maintained that Holy Church, the Ark of Noe, was now on the wave-worn peak of Peñiscola, in the little group of a few thousand souls who yet clung to his shadowy authority, and not at Constance. He was finally deposed in the thirty-seventh session (26 July, 1417) as guilty of perjury, a schismatic, and a heretic; his private life and priestly character, unlike those of John XXIII, were never assailed. The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.

The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.

Election of Martin V

Under the circumstances the usual form of papal election by the cardinals alone (see CONCLAVE) was impossible, if only for the strongly inimical feeling of the majority of the council, which held them responsible not only for the horrors of the schism, but also for many of the administrative abuses of the Roman Curia (see below), the immediate correction of which seemed to not a few of no less importance, to say the least, than the election of a pope. This object was not obscured by minor dissensions, e.g. concerning the rightful rank of the Spanish nation, the number of votes of the Aragonese and Castilians, respectively, the right of the English to constitute a nation, etc. The French, Spanish, and Italian nations desired an immediate papal election; a Church without a head was a monstrosity, said d'Ailly. Under Bishop Robert of Salisbury the English held stoutly for the reforms that seemed imperative in the administration of the papacy and the Curia; Emperor Sigismund was foremost among the Germans for the same cause, and was ready to take violent measures in its interest. But Robert of Salisbury died, and curiously enough, it was by another English bishop, Henry of Winchester, then on his way to Palestine, and a near relative of the King of England, that the antagonistic measures of papal election and curial reform were reconciled in favour of the priority of the former, but with satisfactory assurance, among other points, that the new pope would at once undertake a serious reform of all abuses; that those reforms would be at once proclaimed by the council on which all the nations agreed; and that the manner of the imminent papal election should be left to a special commission. Among the five reform decrees passed at once by the council in its thirty-ninth session (9 Oct., 1417) was the famous "Frequens" which provided for a general council every ten years; the next two, however, were to be convoked by the pope after five and seven years respectively, the first of them at Pavia.

In the fortieth session finally (30 Oct.) was discussed the manner of the new papal election. The council decreed that for this occasion to the twenty-three cardinals should be added thirty deputies of the council (six from each nation) making a body of fifty-three electors. Another decree of this session provided for the immediate and serious attention of the new pope to eighteen points concerning reformatio in capite et Curia Romana. The forty-first session (8 Nov.) provided for the details of the election and for this purpose had the Bull of Clement VI (6 Dec., 1351) read. That afternoon the electors assembled in conclave and after three days chose for the pope the Roman Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V (q. v.). He was only a subdeacon, and so was successively made deacon, priest, and bishop (Fromme, "Die Wahl Martins V.", in "Röm. Quartalschrift", 1896). His coronation took place 21 November, 1417. At its forty-fifth session he solemnly closed the council (22 April, 1418), whereupon, declining invitations to Avignon or to some German city, he returned to Italy and after a short stay in Florence, entered Rome, 28 Sept., 1420, and took up his residence in the Vatican, thereby restoring to the See of Peter its ancient rights and prestige in Christendom.

II. REFORMATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT AND LIFE

The long absence of the popes from Rome in the fourteenth century, entailing the economical and political ruin of the ancient Patrimony of Peter; the many grave abuses directly or indirectly connected with the administration of French popes at Avignon; the general civil disorders of the time (Hundred Years War, Condottieri, etc.), and other causes, had created, long before the Council of Constance, an earnest demand for a reformation of ecclesiastical conditions. The writings of theologians and canonists and the utterances of several popular saints (St. Bridget of Sweden, St. Catherine of Siena) are alone enough to show how well justified was this universal demand (Rocquain). In the minds of many members of the council this reformation, as already stated, was of equal importance with the closing of the schism; and to some, especially to the Germans, it seemed to overshadow even the need of a head for the Church. It was precisely the pope and the cardinals, they argued, whose administration most needed reform, and now, when both were weakest and for the first time in their history had felt the mastery of the theologians and canonists, seemed to this party the psychological moment to write these reforms into the common ecclesiastical law, whence they could not easily be expunged. Since July, 1415, there had been a reform commission of thirty-five members; a new one of twenty-five members had been appointed after the entry of the Spanish nation in October, 1416. During its long career many memorials were presented to the council concerning every imaginable abuse. In its general congregations and sessions bitter reproaches were often uttered on the same themes. The academic equality of many of the members, the prostrate condition of ecclesiastical headship, the peculiar freedom of discussion in the "nation" meetings, and other causes made this council a unique forum for the discussion of all points and methods of reformation. More would certainly have been accomplished had the learned men and the zealous preachers been able to reach some degree of unanimity as to the importance and order of the reforms called for, and had there been more general anxiety for personal reformation and less passion in denouncing the past abuses of papal and curial administration. The Germans (Avisamenta nationis germanicæ) and the English were ardent for a reformation of the Roman Curia, so that a new, holy, and just pope would find his way made straight before him. The former asserted that for 150 years the popes had ceased to govern with that justice which for twelve centuries had characterized them. The cardinals, they said, had loved riches too much, and ecclesiastical synods had been neglected. These were the true causes, according to them, of the corruption of the clergy, the decay of good studies, the ruin of churches and abbeys. Reforms had been promised at Pisa, but what had become of these promises? As a matter of fact, however, the reforms most loudly called for meant the restoration to the bishops of their ancient freedom in the collation of benefices, also a notable diminution in the various dues and assessments payable to Rome from the ecclesiastical properties and revenues of the various nations, which for several reasons had been growing in number and size during the previous century, and were not always unjustified or inequitable. We have already seen that it was much against their will that the Germans agreed to a papal election before receiving full satisfaction in the matter of the aforesaid reforms. The day after his coronation Martin V appointed a (third) reform commission, but its members showed no more unanimity than their predecessors in the same office. The new pope declared that he was ready to accept any propositions that were unanimously agreed on. Eventually, after much discussion and various suggestions seven points were agreed to in the forty-third session (21 March, 1418). All exemptions granted during the synod were withdrawn, and in the future should be granted with difficulty; unions and incorporations of benefices were likewise to be diminished; the pope agreed to renounce the revenues of vacant benefices; all simony was forbidden, likewise the custom of dispensing beneficed persons from the obligation of taking orders; the papal right to impose tithes on clergy and churches was sensibly restricted; ecclesiastics must henceforth wear the dress of their order (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 1114-77). Other reforms were left to the initiative of each nation which provided for them by special concordats, a term said to have been here used for the first time. The German Concordat (including Poland, Hungary, and Scandinavia) and that with France, Spain, and Italy, ran for five years; the English Concordat was indefinite (for the details see Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1189 sqq., and Hübler, Die Konstanzer Reform und die Konkordate von 1418, Leipzig, 1867). The number of cardinals was fixed at twenty-four, and they were to be taken proportionately from the great nations. Stricter regulation was also agreed on for papal reservations, annates, commendams, Indulgences, etc. Nevertheless, in a papal consistory (10 March, 1418), Martin V rejected any right of appeal from the Apostolic See to a future council, and asserted the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff as Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth in all questions of Catholic Faith (Nulli fas est a supremo judice, videlicet Apostolicâ sede seu Rom. Pontif. Jesu Christi vicario in terris appellare aut illius judicium in causis fidei, quæ tamquam majores ad ipsum et sedem Apostolicam deferendæ sunt, declinare, Mansi, Conc., XXVIII, 200). Von Funk has shown (op. cit., 489 sqq.), that the oft-maintained confirmation of the decrees of Constance by Martin V, in the last session of the council (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fldei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) must be understood only of a specific case (Falkenberg, see below), and not of any notable part of, much less of all, the decrees of Constance. It is true that in the Bull "Inter Cunctas", 22 Feb., 1418, apropos of the Wycliffites and Hussites, he calls for a formal approval of the decrees of Constance in favorem fidet a salutem animarum, but these words are easily understood of the council's action against the aforesaid heresies and its efforts to restore to the Church a certain head. In particular the famous five articles of the fifth session, establishing the supremacy of the council, never received papal confirmation (Hergenröther-Kirsch, II, 862, and Baudrillart, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1219-23). For a refutation of the Gallican claim that these decrees possess a dogmatic character, see GALLICANISM. Nevertheless, the Council of Constance is usually reckoned the Sixteenth General Council; some, as stated above, acknowledge it as such after the fourteenth session (reconvocation by Gregory XII); others again (Salembier) after the thirty-fifth session (adherence of the Spanish nation); Hefele only in the final sessions (forty-second to forty-fifth) under Martin V. No papal approbation of it was ever meant to confirm its anti-papal acts; thus Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dignity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ). See Bouix, "De papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico" (Paris, 1869), and Salembier (below), 313-23.

III. THE REPRESSION OF HERESY

At various times the council dealt with current heresies, among them those of John Wyclif and John Hus.

Condemnation of Forty-five Wycliffite Propositions

In the eighth session it was question of Wyclif, whose writings had already been condemned at the Council of Rome (1412-13) under John XXIII. In this session forty-five propositions of Wyclif, already condemned by the universities of Paris and Prague, were censured as heretical, and in a later session another long list of 260 errors. All his writings were ordered to be burned and his body was condemned to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground (this was not done until 1428 under Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln). In 1418 Martin V, by the aforesaid Bull "Inter Cunctas", approved the action of the council (Mansi, op. cit., XXVII, 1210 sq.; see WYCLIFFITES).

Condemnation and Execution of John Hus

Since 1408 John Hus, an eloquent preacher of Prague, had openly taught the Wycliffite heresies. By his ardent zeal for ecclesiastical reforms on the basis of Wyclif's teachings, his patriotic insistence on the purity of Bohemian faith and his assertion of Bohemian nationalism, he had gone rapidly to the front as a leader of his nation, then deeply embittered against the Germans dominant in the political and academic life of Bohemia. Since 1412 he had been banished from Prague, but was only the more dangerous, by his fiery discourse and his writings, among the highly excited Bohemians, who mostly saw in him the flower of their national genius, and were otherwise embittered against a clergy which then offered too many elements of weakness to the attacks of such reformers as John Hus and his friend and admirer Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague. The errors of Hus concerned chiefly the nature of the Church (only the predestined), the papal headship, the rule of faith (Scripture and the law of Christ), Communion under both kinds (q. v. also HUSSITES), auricular confession (unnecessary), civil authority (dependent among Christians on state of grace). More than once (e. g. 1411) Hus had appealed to a general council, and when at the opening of the Council of Constance Emperor Sigismund and King Wenceslaus of Bohemia urged him to present himself, he was not unwilling; it was made up, he knew, of ardent reformers, and he could hope by his eloquence to convert them to his own intense faith in the ideas of Wyclif. He left Prague, 11 October, 1414, in the company of three Bohemian nobles and assured of a safe-conduct (salvus conductus) from Emperor Sigismund. They entered Constance 3 November, where Hus took up his residence in a private house, and where (5 November) the safe-conduct was delivered to him. The day after his arrival he appeared before John XXIII, who treated him courteously, removed the censures of excommunication and interdict, but forbade him to say Mass or to preach, also to appear at public ecclesiastical functions (his thoroughly heretical and even revolutionary doctrines were long notorious and, as said above, had already been condemned at Rome). He appeared again before the pope and the cardinals, 28 November, declared himself innocent of a single error, and said he was ready to retract and do penance if convicted of any. He had continued, however, to violate the papal prohibition, said Mass daily and preached to the people present. Consequently he was the same day arrested, by order of the Bishop of Constance, and a little later (6 December) placed in the Dominican convent. On complaining of the unsanitary condition of his place of confinement he was transferred to the castle of Gottlieben, and later to the Franciscan convent at Constance (June, 1415). His examination went on during April and May, and was conducted by d'Ailly and Fillastre; in the meantime he carried on an extensive correspondence, wrote various treatises, and replied to the charges of his opponents. His Bohemian friends protested against the arrest of Hus, and exhibited the emperor's safe-conduct (but only after the arrest). Sigismund was at first wroth over the arrest, but later (1 Jan., 1415) declared that he would not prevent the council from dealing according to law with persons accused of heresy. The aforesaid condemnation (4 May) of the forty-five propositions of Wyclif fore-shadowed the fate of Hus, despite the protests of Bohemians and Poles against his severe incarceration, the slanders against Bohemian faith, the delay of justice, secrecy of the proceedings, and the violation of the imperial safe-conduct (Raynaldus, ad an. 1414, no. 10). The public trial took place on 5, 7, and 8 June, 1415; extracts from his works were read, witnesses were heard. He denied some of the teachings attributed to him, defended others, notably opinions of Wyclif, declared that no Bohemian was a heretic, etc. He refused all formulæ of submission, again declared himself conscious of no error, nor, as he said, had any been proved against him from the Scriptures. He declared that he would not condemn the truth, nor perjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractation proved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor assisted, and on which occasion thirty propositions, taken mostly from the work of Hus "On the Church" (De Ecclesiâ), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted heretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession and courage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: "Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles. They were surely incompatible with either the ecclesiastical or the civil order of the time, and would at any period have bred both religious and civil anarchy, had they been put into practice. As to the safe-conduct of the emperor, we must distinguish, says Dr. von Funk (Kirchengeschichte, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1902, p. 495, and the more recent literature there quoted; also "Der Katholik", 1898, LXXVIII, 186-90, and K. Müller, non-Catholic, in the "Hist. Vierteljahrschrift", 1898, 41-86) between the arrest of Hus at Constance and his execution. The former act was always accounted in Bohemia a violation of the safe-conduct and a breach of faith on the emperor's part; on the other hand they knew well, and so did Hus, that the safe-conduct was only a guarantee against illegal violence and could not protect him from the sentence of his legitimate judges. (On the death penalty for heresy, see Ficker, "Die gesetzliche Einführung der Todestrafe für Häresie" in "Mittheil. d. Inst. f. oest. Geschichtsforschung", 1888, 177 sqq., and Havet, "L'hérésie et le bras séculier au moyen âge jusqu'au XIIIe siècle", Paris, 1881; see also Gosselin, "Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages", I, 85-89). In the medieval German codes known as the Sachsenspiegel (about 1225) and the Schwabenspiegel (about 1275), heresy is already punishable with the stake. It is not true that the council declared that no faith should be kept with a heretic (see Pallavicino, "Hist. Conc. Trid.", XII, 15, 8; Höfler in "Hist. polit. Blätter", IV, 421, and Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 227, also Baudrillart, op. cit., II, 1217). In the following year Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague, the friend of Hus, suffered the same fate at Constance. He had come voluntarily to the council in April, 1415, but soon fled the city; afterwards, mindful of the fate of Hus, he obtained from the council a safe-conduct to return for his defence. He did not appear, however, and was soon seized in Bavaria and brought in chains to Constance. In September, 1415, he abjured the forty-five propositions of Wyclif and the thirty of Hus, but did not regain his freedom, as his sincerity was suspected, and new charges were made against him. Finally, he was brought before the council, 23 May, 1416, one year after his arrest. This time he solemnly withdrew his abjuration as a sinful act and compelled by fear, and proclaimed Hus a holy and upright man. He was forthwith condemned as a heretic in the twenty-first session (30 May, 1416) and perished at the stake with no less courage than Hus. The humanist Poggio was an eyewitness of his death, and his letter to Leonardo of Arezzo, describing the scene, may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 280 sqq. The death of both Hus and Jerome of Prague affected strongly other humanists of the time; Æneas Sylvius (later Pius II) said that they went to their deaths as men invited to a banquet. The immediate consequences were grave enough, i. e. the long Utraquist wars. For an equitable criticism of the defects in the trials of both Hus and Jerome see Baudrillart in "Dict. de théol. cath.", II, 1216-17. (See also HUSSITES.)

Jean Petit (Johannes Parvus) and Johann von Folkenberg

The question of the licity of tyrannicide occupied the attention of the council. The Franciscan Jean Petit (Parvus) had publicly defended (in nine theses) the Duke of Burgundy for his share in the murder of Louis d'Orléans (23 Nov., 1407), on the ground that any subject might kill or cause to be killed a tyrannical ruler (Kervyn de Lettenhove, Jean sans peur et l'apologie du tyrannicide, Brussels, 1861). After several years of discussion this thesis was condemned at Paris in 1414 by the bishop, the inquisitor, and the university. The Duke of Burgundy appealed to the Roman See. At Constance the matter was discussed in the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415); many French doctors were eager for the formal condemnation of Petit and his theses, but his Franciscan brethren defended him in a common memorial; the council finally was content with condemning in a general way the proposition that, regardless of his oath and without awaiting a judicial sentence, any vassal or subject might licitly kill, or cause to be killed, a tyrant. Quite similar was the case of Johann von Falkenberg, a German Dominican, who had maintained in a violent work against the King of Poland that it was allowed to kill him and all other Poles (Mansi, Conc., XXVII, 765). Many demanded with much earnestness the condemnation of Falkenberg, but no definite sentence was pronounced, despite the ardent discussions (see TYRANNICIDE), not even in the forty-fifth (last) session when the Poles urged it on Martin V; he declared that in matters of faith he would approve only what had been decided by the holy general council conciliariter, i. e. by the whole council and not by one or more nations. As noted above, these words of the pope refer only to the particular (Falkenberg) matter before him and not to all the decrees of the council, even in matters of faith.

IV. ATTENDANCE AT THE COUNCIL; GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Owing to its long duration the attendance at the council varied much. The highest figures reached were: 29 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 150 bishops, 100 abbots, 50 provosts, 300 doctors (mostly of theology). It was calculated that some 5000 monks and friars were present and in all about 18,000 ecclesiastics. The visitors are variously reckoned from 50,000 to 100,000 or more. Many European sovereigns and princes were present, invited by the emperor, among them (besides Emperor Sigismund and his suite) the Electors Ludwig von der Pfalz and Rudolph of Saxony, the Dukes of Bavaria, Austria, Saxony, Schleswig, Mecklenburg, Lorraine, and Teck, the Margrave of Brandenburg, also the ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Naples, and the Spanish kingdoms. Towards the end the Greek emperor, Michael Palæologus, was also present (19 Feb., 1418, with 19 Greek bishops). In some respects the council resembled more a modern Catholic congress than a traditional ecclesiastical synod. The numerous princes and nobles by their tournaments and splendid amusements; the merchants by their rich and curious wares; the travellers by their number and importance; the fringe of fakirs and mountebanks found at all popular gatherings, made Constance for the time the cynosure of all Europe and even of the Greek world. There is, of course, no reason to wonder that in so motley a throng, suddenly gathered from all quarters, moral disorders and loose living should have manifested themselves. Quite apart from the reliability or animus of some gossipy chroniclers, the council was directly responsible only for its own acts and not for the life of the city of Constance. It must also be remembered that in one way or another unforeseen events and situations protracted the council beyond all ordinary prevision. Among these were: the flight of John XXIII; the lengthy process of Benedict XIII; the general jealousy and dislike of the cardinals, and in turn, the natural efforts of the latter to save the ecclesiastical constitution from thorough ruin at the unhappiest moment for the papal authority, hitherto its corner-stone; the passionate longing for a public canonical purification of Catholicism from its acknowledged abuses and excrescences (in the head and in the Roman Curia). We need not wonder that at the end of his remarkable diary of the council, Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre wrote as follows (Finke ed., Forschungen und Quellen, p. 242): "Hoc Constantiense concilium ... omnibus quæ precesserunt generalibus conciliis fuit in congregando difficilius, in progressu singularius, mirabilius et periculosius, et tempore diuturnius", i. e. no previous council was gotten together with so much difficulty, or ran a career so unique, marvellous and perilous, or lasted so long. From an ecclesiastical point of view, the Council of Constance may truly be said to close the medieval and to open the modern period. It was an anti-climax for the all-dominant medieval papacy, while in Sigismund (Emperor-elect, King of Hungary, heir of Bohemia, etc.) for the last time appears a pale image of the ideal office of the medieval empire. The language of its orators and its "Acta" exhibits a certain dawn of Humanism (Finke) while there for the first time modern nationalism, quite different from its medieval prototype, comes to the front, dominates the entire situation, menaces even the immemorial unity of the Church, and begins its long career of discordant relations with the central administration of Catholicism (see GALLICANISM; JOHANN HONTHEIM). Not a few elements of the later ecclesiastical revolution under Luther are already visibly present at Constance. The German nation in particular remained grievously discontented with the local results of the second of the great reform councils (Pisa, Constance, Basle), and throughout the fifteenth century sought variously, but with little success, to realize the demands put forth at the Council of Constance. [See EUGENE IV; MARTIN V; SIGISMUND, EMPEROR; F. Rocquain, "La cour de Rome et l'esprit de réforme avant Luther" (Paris, 1900), also Pastor (see below), and Janssen, "Hist. of the German People", etc. POPE; PRIMACY; REFORMATION; CHURCH; TRENT, COUNCIL OF; VATICAN, COUNCILS OF THE.]

Acts of the Council— chief collection of the Acts of the council and pertinent documents is that of VON DER HARDT, in six folio volumes, Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense concilium (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1692-1700), whence they passed into HARDOUIN (VIII) and MANSI (XXVII-XXVIII). All former editions, however, of these Acts and documents are in many ways imperfect and uncritically edited, and must give way to the (partly finished) edition of HEINRICH FINKE, Acta Concilii Constantiensis I. (Münster, 1896), from 1410 to 1414; Acta Aragonensia (1907); cf. Zur Kritik der Akten, etc., in his Forschungen und Quellen (below), 52-68; also NOËL VALOIS, in preface to Vol. III of La France et le grand schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1901). Many important documents are in RAYNALDUS, Ann. Eccl., ad ann. 1414-18; see also for important correspondence and other documents MARTÈNE AND DURAND, Thesaurus novus anecd., II, and DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur Gesch. des XV-XVI. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1863), II. Cf. Deutsche Reichstagsakten, IV-XI, from 1400 to 1438 (Munich and Gotha, 1878-1900), a very important collection of civil and ecclesiastical interest; also the writings of PIERRE D'AILLY and GERSON.

Modern Histories of the Council— (Calvinist), Hist. du Concile de Constance (2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1727); ROYKO (Josephinist), Gesch. der grossen allg. Kirchenversammlung zu Costnitz (Prague and Vienna 1782); WESSENBERG (Febronian), Die grossen Kirchenversammlungen des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts (Constance, 1840); CREIGHTON (non-Catholic), A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, I: The Great Schism and the Council of Constance (London, 1882). Excellent Catholic accounts: TOSTI, Storia del Concilio di Costanza (Naples, 1883); HEFELE, Conciliengeseh., VII. 26, 66 sqq.; PASTOR, History of the Popes, Vol. I, bk. II; SALEMBIER, Le grand schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1902). 291-416, has good literature of the subject; MARMOR, Das Konzil zu Constanz (ibid., 1898): BLIEMETZRIEDER, Das Generalkonzil zu Constanz (1904).

Diaries and Chronicles— most important of the contemporary accounts of the council is the Diary of GUILLAUME FILLASTRE, Cardinal, of San Marco, and a leading spirit during the entire council. Dr. Finke says (p. 77) that it is throughout trustworthy and exact (it has been edited by him from Vatican Manuscripts 4173 and 4175, in Forschungen und Quellen (below), 163-242). Among the chroniclers of the council are THEODORICUS (DIETERICH) DE VRIE, an Osnabrück Augustinian, De consolations Ecclesiae, seu Hist. Conc. Const., in the first volume of VON DER HARDT; THEODORICUS (DIETERICH) VON NIEM, a well-informed but partial and vindictive writer, De schismate libri III ed. ERLER (Leipzig, 1890), ID., Nemus unionis (Basle, 1566). and ID., Historia de vitâ Johannis XXIII, in the second volume of VON DER HARDT; ULRICH VON RICHENTHAL, Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils, ed. M. R. BUCK, in Bibl. d. litterär. Vereins in Stuttgart (Tübingen, 1882). Vol. CLVIII.

Lives of Prominent Participants— Geschichte Kaiser Sigismunds (Hamburg, 1838-45); JEEP, Gerson, Wicliff und Hess (Göttingen, 1857); LOSERTH, J. Huss und Wiciif (Prague, 1884); SCHWAB, Johannes Gerson (Würzburg, 1858); MASSON, Jean Gerson (Lyons, 1894); SALEMBIER, Petrus de Alliaco (Lille. 1886); TSCHACKERT, Peter von Ailli (Gotha, 1877); FAGES, Hist. de Saint Vincent Ferrier (2nd ed., Louvain, 1901).

Special Dissertations—, Die Entstehung der konziliaren Theorie (Rome, 1893); BESS, Studien z. Gesch. des Konstanzer Koncils (1891), I; DENIFLE, Les délégués des universités françaises au Concile de Constance in Revue des Bibliothèques (Paris, 1892); also his Désolation des églises, des monastères et des hôpitaux de France durant la guerre de cent ans (Paris, 1889); FINKE, Forschungen und Quellen zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils (Paderborn, 1889); IDEM, Bilder vom Konstanzer Konzil in the Almanach of the Bad. Hist. Commission for 1903; KEPPLER, Die Politik des Kardinalskollegiums in Konstanz (Münster, 1899); F. MÜLLER, Der Kampf um die Autorität auf dem Konzil zu Konstans (Berlin, 1860); SIEBEKING, Die Organisation u. Geschäftsordnung des Costnitzer Konsils (Leipzig, 1875), and STUHR, Die Organisation u. Geschäftsordnung des Pisaner u. Konst. Konsils (Schwerin, 1891); TRUTTMANN, Das Konklave auf dem Konzil zu Constanz (Freiburg, 1899).

Encyclopedia Articles—ÜPPER in Kirchenlex. VII 978-1006; VOIGT-BESS in HAUCK, Realencykl. XI, 30-34; ZELLER in Kirckliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1908), II, 470 sqq., BAUDRILLART in Dict. de théol. cath. (Paris, 1908), II, 1200-24.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Constantia

A titular see of Arabia and suffragan of Bostra. It figures in Hierocles' "Synecdemus" about 533, in the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch, in the sixth century, and in Georgius Cyprius' "Descriptio orbis Romani" in the beginning of the seventh century. Two bishops only are known: Chilon, present at Constantinople in 381 (Mansi, Coll. Con., III, 569; Lequien, II, 865, says wrongly at Nicæa in 325), and Solemus at Chalcedon in 451 (Mansi, VII, 168). Eubel mentions (I, 211) three Latin bishops of Constantia in Ph nicia during the fourteenth century; this city is otherwise unknown and may be our Arabian see. Waddington (Inscriptions grecques et latines . . . Syrie, 575) has identified with much likelihood Constantia with Brâk, north of Ledja, in Trachonitis. Brâk had a special era, and inscriptions prove that it had been embellished by Constantine, whence it took its name Constantia (also Constantine, or Constantiana). The ruins are rather important. There have recently settled on this site some Circassian immigrants. Constantia in Arabia is not to be confounded with Constantia, a suffragan see of Amida in Mesopotamia; Constantia, or Tella, a renowned Jacobite bishopric whose ruins are at Viran-Shehir, half-way between Mardin and Edessa; nor with Constantia, or Salamis, metropolis of Cyprus.

Revue biblique (1898), VII, 96-100, 283-285.

S. VAILHÉ

Pope Constantine

Consecrated 25 March, 708; d. 9 April, 715; a Syrian, the son of John, and "a remarkably affable man". The first half of his reign was marked by a cruel famine in Rome, the second by an extraordinary abundance. For some time he had trouble with Felix, Archbishop of Ravenna, whom he had himself consecrated. Relying on the secular power, the new bishop refused to offer the pope due obedience. It was only after he had tasted of dire misfortune that Felix submitted. Constantine received as pilgrims two Anglo-Saxon kings, Coenred of Mercia and Offa of the East Saxons. They both received the tonsure in Rome and embraced the monastic life. (Bede, Hist. eccl., V, xix, xx.) St. Egwin, Bishop of Worcester, went to Rome along with them and obtained from the pope various privileges for his monastery of Evesham. ("Chron. Abbat. de Evesham", in R. S.; "St. Egwin and his Abbey of Evesham", London, 1904.) The extant documents regarding this monastery which bear this pope's name are all spurious. (They are to be found in Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 281.) But his privilege for the monasteries of Bermondsey and Woking (ibid., 276) may be genuine.

In 692 the Emperor Justinian II had caused to assemble the so-called Quinisext or Trullan Council. At this assembly, which was attended only by Greek bishops, 102 canons were passed, many of which established customs opposed to those of Rome. By canon xiii the celibacy of the Greek secular clergy became a thing of the past; and by canon xxxvi, a further step was taken in the direction of rendering the Patriarch of constantinople quite independent of the Holy See. Justinian made every effort to secure the adhesion of the popes to these decrees. But one after another they all refused. At length he sent an order to Constantine to repair to Constantinople. Leaving behind him, according to the custom at the time, the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the Primicerius, or chief of the notaries, to govern the Church in his absence, he set sail for the East (709) with a number of bishops and clergy. Wherever his vessel touched, he was, by Justinian's orders, received with as much honour as the emperor himself. He entered Constantinople in triumph, and at Justinian's request crossed over to Nicomedia, where he was then residing. Strange to say, this cruel prince received the pope with the greatest honour, prostrating himself before him and kissing his feet. After receiving Holy Communion at the hands of the pope, he renewed all the privileges of the Roman Church. Exactly what passed between them on the subject of the Quinisext Council is not known. It would appear, however, that Constantine approved those canons which were not opposed to the true Faith or to sound morals, and that with this qualified approval of his council the emperor was content.

Soon after Constantine's return to Rome (Oct., 711), Justinian II was dethroned by Philippicus Bardanes. The new emperor strove to revive Monothelism, and sent a letter to the pope which the latter caused to be examined in a synod and condemned. Further, as the emperor burnt the Acts of the Sixth General Council, restored to the diptychs the names which that council had caused to be erased, re-erected their images, and removed the representation of the council which was hanging in front of the palace, the pope and the people of Rome placed in the portico of St. Peter's a series of representations of the six general councils, and refused to place the new emperor's name on their charters or their money. They also declined to place his statue, according to custom, in the official chapel of St. Cæsarius on the Palatine, the site of which has just been discovered (1907), or to pray for him in the Canon of the Mass. To punish the Romans for these daring measures, a new duke was sent to Rome, and they would no doubt have had much to suffer but for the opportune deposition of Philippicus by the orthodox Anastasius (Whitsun Eve, 713). The new emperor made haste to dispatch to Rome, through the Exarch Scholasticus, a letter in which he professed his orthodoxy and his adhesion to the Sixth General Council, which had condemned Monothelism. Constantine also received a letter from John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledging that the "apostolical pre-eminence of the Pope is to the whole Church, what the head is to the body", and that "according to the canons he is the head of the Christian priesthood". John assured the pope that, while co­operating with the Emperor Philippicus, he had always been orthodox at heart, and that the decree, drawn up at the council in which the heretical emperor had hoped to re-establish Monothelism (712), was really orthodox in sense, although not apparently so in words. (See John's letter in the epilogue of the Deacon Agatho, in Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", XII, 192.)

Among other distinguished men who came to Rome in the days of Constantine was Benedict, Archbishop of Milan. He came not only to pray at the shrines of the Apostles, for he was a man of such remarkable holiness that he was distinguished for it in all Italy (Paul the Deacon, Hist., VI, xxix), but also to discuss with the pope as to whose immediate jurisdiction belonged the Church of Pavia. At one time, certainly in the fifth century, the bishops of Pavia were subject to the bishops of Milan and were consecrated by them. For some reason, perhaps because the Lombards made Pavia their capital, its bishops had ceased to be dependent on those of Milan, and had become directly subject to the popes. Accordingly, when it had been proved to Benedict that for some long time at least they had been consecrated at Rome, he definitely surrendered his claim to jurisdiction over them. The visit of a pope to a city at any distance from Rome being so comparatively rare, the people of several places at which Constantine touched in his journey to and from Constantinople were only too pleased to be able to avail themselves of the opportunity of getting him to consecrate a bishop for them. It is on record that he consecrated twelve in this way, and, at the customary times and places, no less than sixty-four.

Lib. pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 389; Mann, Lives of the Popes (London, St. Louis, 1902), I, pt. II, 127 sqq.

Horace K. Mann

Constantine (Cirta)

DIOCESE OF CONSTANTINE (CONSTANTINIANA).

Comprises the present arrondissement of Constantine in Algeria. It was separated from the Diocese of Algiers 25 July, 1866. A pontifical Brief, dated 1867, authorized its bishop to adopt the title of Bishop of Constantine and Hippo.

The city of Cirta, which took in the fourth century the name of its restorer, Constantine, and in which this emperor built two churches, was an episcopal see from the second century up to the time of the Mussulman invasion. The Bishops Agapius and Secundinus, the soldier AEmilianus, and the virgins Tertulla and Antonia were martyred there under Valerian (253-60). A Latin inscription cut in the rocks at the entrance to the Rummel Pass (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum: Africa, 7924) mentions Sts. Marian and James as martyrs either at Cirta or Lambesa during the same persecution. Within the territory now comprising the Diocese of Constantine there were, in the fifth century, 195 dioceses, whose titles and episcopal lists have been published by Mgr. Toulotte, among them the Diocese Of Hippo, governed by St. Augustine in the fifth century. On 30 August, 1842, Mgr. Dupuch, Bishop of Algiers, brought the right arm of St. Augustine from Pavia to Hippo, and the anniversary of the translation of this precious relic is celebrated annually. A new basilica erected on the hill of Hippo, purchased by Mgr. Lavigerie in 1880, was consecrated 11 March, 1900. Prior to the enforcement of the law of 1901, there were in the diocese Lazarists, the Little Brothers of Mary, and the White Fathers; at present only the latter remain. In 1900 the diocese contained 2 foundling asylums, 22 infant asylums, 2 boys' orphanages, 4 girls' orphanages, 3 industrial schools, 2 houses of shelter, 13 hospitals and hospices, 7 dispensaries, and 15 houses of religious who care for the sick. At the close of 1905 (end of the period under the Concordat) the diocese had a population of 137,041; 5 pastorates, 67 succursal parishes (mission churches), and 17 curacies remunerated by the State.

GEORGES GOYAU

Constantine Africanus

A medieval medical writer and teacher; born c. 1015; died c. 1087. His name, Africanus, comes from the place of his nativity, Carthage in Africa. Early in life he devoted himself to the study of medicine, and as was the custom of the times made distant journeys, some of which brought him into the Far East. He became familiar with the Oriental languages and studied Arabian literature very deeply. His studies in Arabian medicine taught him many things unknown to his Western contemporaries. On his return to Cartage this led to great jealousy on the part of his professional brethren and to so much unpleasantness, for he is even said to have been accused of practicing magic, that he gladly accepted the position of secretary of the Emperor Constantine Monomachus in Reggio, a small town near Byzantium. While in Salerno Constantine became a professor of medicine and attracted widespread attention. He remained but a few years in this position, however, and gave up his honors and his worldly goods to become a Benedictine in the monastery of Monte Cassino. He was received with open arms by the Abbot Desiderius, one of the most learned men o the time, who afterwards became Pope Victor III. Nearly twenty years of Constantine's life were spent at Monte Cassino. He occupied himself with the writing of books, being stimulated thereto by Desiderius who was his most intimate friend. His best-known work is the so-called "Liber Pantegni", which is really a translation of the "Khitaab el Maleki" of Ali Ben el-Abbas. This book he dedicated to Desiderius. He also wrote some original works, but it has been found so difficult to separate what is undoubtedly genuine from what came to be attributed to him in time, that there is no certainty as to his original contributions to medicine. With Constantine begins the second epoch of the Salernitan School of Medicine, especially notable for its translation of all the great writes on medicine, Greek as well as Arabian, and for original work of a high order. Many of the distinguished professors of the twelfth century at Salerno were proud to proclaim Constantine as their master. Of the Many editions of his works the chief is that of Basle (in fol., 1536).

JAMES J. WALSH

Constantine the Great

Life

His coins give his name as M., or more frequently as C., Flavius Valerius Constantinus. He was born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia, the son of a Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena, a woman of humble extraction but remarkable character and unusual ability. The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288. After his father's elevation to the dignity of Caesar we find him at the court of Diocletian and later (305) fighting under Galerius on the Danube. When, on the resignation of his father Constantius was made Augustus, the new Emperor of the West asked Galerius, the Eastern Emperor, to let Constantine, whom he had not seen for a long time, return to his father's court. This was reluctantly granted. Constantine joined his father, under whom he had just time to distinguish himself in Britain before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged by Galerius somewhat hesitatingly. This event was the first break in Diocletian's scheme of a four-headed empire (tetrarchy) and was soon followed by the proclamation in Rome of Maxentius, the son of Maximian, a tyrant and profligate, as Caesar, October, 306.

During the wars between Maxentius and the Emperors Severus and Galerius, Constantine remained inactive in his provinces. The attempt which the old Emperors Diocletian and Maximian made, at Carmentum in 307, to restore order in the empire having failed, the promotion of Licinius to the position of Augustus, the assumption of the imperial title by Maximinus Daia, and Maxentius' claim to be sole emperor (April, 308), led to the proclamation of Constantine as Augustus. Constantine, having the most efficient army, was acknowledged as such by Galerius, who was fighting against Maximinus in the East, as well as by Licinius.

So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing down Constantine's statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward. At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard, Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius' army against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.

Of all Diocletian's tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His treachery soon compelled Constantine to make war on him. Pushing forward with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive blow at Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and the battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians, while at the same time he treated with contempt Constantine's undoubted rights and privileges, the outbreak of war was certain, and Constantine gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, besides a fleet of 200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on the other hand, by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended succeeded in collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The opposing armies met at Adrianople, 3 July, 324, and Constantine's well disciplined troops defeated and put to flight the less disciplined forces of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the garrison of Byzantium so that an attack seemed likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the fortress lay in a blockade and famine. This required the assistance of Constantine's fleet, but his opponent's ships barred the way. A sea fight at the entrance to the Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine's detachment retired to Elains, where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When the fleet of the Licinian admiral Abantus pursued on the following day, it was overtaken by a violent storm which destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men. Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a sufficient corps to maintain the blockade of Byzantium, and overtook his opponent's main body at Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon. Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat, killing 25,000 men and scattering the greater part of the remainder. Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw that further resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his noble-hearted conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325), Licinius renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the Roman Senate and executed.

Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire. Shortly after the defeat of Licinius, Constantine determined to make Constantinople the future capital of the empire, and with his usual energy he took every measure to enlarge, strengthen, and beautify it. For the next ten years of his reign he devoted himself to promoting the moral, political, and economical welfare of his possessions and made dispositions for the future government of the empire. While he placed his nephews, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus in charge of lesser provinces, he designated his sons Constantius, Constantine, and Constans as the future rulers of the empire. Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism.

Historical Appreciation

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine's decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.

Long before this, belief in the old polytheism had been shaken; in more stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its strength only in the form of superstition, magic, and divination. The world was fully ripe for monotheism or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered itself in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental religions: in the worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in Christianity. Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov. Patr. Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, "Enarratio in Ps. x"; Leo I, Serm. xxvi). When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief. It looks almost as though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed more against all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of Christians. The policy of the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian was at first friendly towards Christianity; even its grimmest foe, Julian, wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine's father, protected the Christians during a most cruel persecution.

Constantine grew up under the influence of his father's ideas. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus by his first, informal marriage, called concubinatus, with Helena, a woman of inferior birth. For a short time Constantine had been compelled to stay at the court of Galerius, and had evidently not received a good impression from his surroundings there. When Diocletian retired, Constantius advanced from the position of Caesar to that of Augustus, and the army, against the wishes of the other emperors, raised the young Constantine to the vacant position. Right here was seen at once how unsuccessful would be the artificial system of division of the empire and succession to the throne by which Diocletian sought to frustrate the overweening power of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian's personality is full of contradictions; he was just as crude in his religious feelings as he was shrewd and far-seeing in state affairs; a man of autocratic nature, but one who, under certain circumstances, voluntarily set bounds to himself. He began a reconstruction of the empire, which Constantine completed. The existence of the empire was threatened by many serious evils, the lack of national and religious unity, its financial and military weakness. Consequently the system of taxation had to be accommodated to the revived economic barter system. The taxes bore most heavily on the peasants, the peasant communities, and the landed proprietors; increasingly heavy compulsory service was also laid on those engaged in industrial pursuits, and they were therefore combined into state guilds. The army was strengthened, the troops on the frontier being increased to 360,000 men. In addition, the tribes living on the frontiers were taken into the pay of the State as allies, many cities were fortified, and new fortresses and garrisons were established, bringing soldiers and civilians more into contact, contrary to the old Roman axiom. When a frontier was endangered the household troops took the field. This body of soldiers, known as palatini, comitatenses, which had taken the place of the Praetorian Guard, numbered not quite 200,000 men (sometimes given as 194,500). A good postal service maintained constant communication between the different parts of the empire. The civil and military administration were, perhaps, somewhat more sharply divided than before, but an equally increased importance was laid on the military capacity of all state officials. Service at court was termed militia, "military service". Over all, like to a god, was enthroned the emperor, and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a sacredness, a ceremonial, which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies. The East from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic government; each ruler was believed by his people to be in direct communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was regarded as revealed law. In the same manner the emperors allowed themselves to be venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything connected with them was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred had now always to be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials, and an ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult. Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through many ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a divinity. As the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial, the emperors showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where monotheism held almost undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic conditions were better. Rome was no longer able to control the whole of the great empire with its peculiar civilizations.

In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire. This conviction constantly spread, especially as Constantine's father had obtained good results therefrom. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, where Constantius Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the prosperity of the provinces visibly increased, while in the East prosperity was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians.

In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience--reasons resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (De mort. persec., ch. xliv) and Eusebius (Vita Const., I, xxvi-xxxi). He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ (CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum (q. v.). In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the inscription: "By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People the ancient splendour and glory." Directly after his victory Constantine granted tolerance to the Christians and next year (313) took a further step in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he issued at Milan the famous joint edict of tolerance. This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as to what would be advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire and had, above all, taken into consideration the service which man owed to the "deity". Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone might follow that religion which he considered the best. They hoped that "the deity enthroned in heaven" would grant favour and protection to the emperors and their subjects. This was in itself quite enough to throw the pagans into the greatest astonishment. When the wording of the edict is carefully examined there is clear evidence of an effort to express the new thought in a manner too unmistakable to leave any doubt. The edict contains more than the belief, to which Galerius at the end had given voice, that the persecutions were useless, and it granted the Christians freedom of worship, while at the same time it endeavoured not to affront the pagans. Without doubt the term deity was deliberately chosen, for it does not exclude a heathen interpretation. The cautious expression probably originated in the imperial chancery, where pagan conceptions and pagan forms of expression still lasted for a long time. Nevertheless the change from the bloody persecution of Christianity to the toleration of it, a step which implied its recognition, may have startled many heathens and may have excited in them the same astonishment that a German would feel if an emperor who was a Social Democrat were to seize the reins of government. The foundations of the State would seem to such a one to rock. The Christians also may have been taken aback. Before this, it is true, it had occurred to Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxxiii) that the emperor might some day become a Christian, but Tertullian had thought otherwise, and had written (Apol., xxi) the memorable sentence: "Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares" (But the Caesars also would have believed in Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary to the world or if Christians too could have been Caesars). The same opinion was held by St. Justin (I, xii, II, xv). That the empire should become Christian seemed to Justin and many others an impossibility, and they were just as little in the wrong as the optimists were in the right. At all events, a happy day now dawned for the Christians. They must have felt as did the persecuted in the time of the French Revolution when Robespierre finally fell and the Reign of Terror was over. The feeling of emancipation from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius (De mortibus persecut., in P. L., VII, 52), concerning the ways in which death overtook the persecutors. It says: "We should now give thanks to the Lord, Who has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening wolves, Who has exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the pasture. Where is now the swarming multitude of our enemies, where the hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from the earth; let us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the victory of the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may be preserved to us." The imprisoned Christians were released from the prisons and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with acclamations of joy; the churches were again filled, and those who had fallen away sought forgiveness.

For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. The one thing he did was to suppress divination and magic; this the heathen emperors had also at times sought to do. Thus, in 320, the emperor forbade the diviners or haruspices to enter a private house under pain of death. Whoever by entreaty or promise of payment persuaded a haruspex to break this law, that man's property should be confiscated and he himself should be burned to death. Informers were to be rewarded. Whoever desired to practise heathen usages must do so openly. He must go to the public altars and sacred places, and there observe traditional forms of worship. "We do not forbid", said the emperor, "the observance of the old usages in the light of day." And in an ordinance of the same year, intended for the Roman city prefects, Constantine directed that if lightning struck an imperial palace, or a public building, the haruspices were to seek out according to ancient custom what the sign might signify, and their interpretation was to be written down and reported to the emperor. It was also permitted to private individuals to make use of this old custom, but in following this observance they must abstain from the forbidden sacrificia domestica. A general prohibition of the family sacrifice cannot be deduced from this, although in 341 Constantine's son Constantius refers to such an interdict by his father (Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 2). A prohibition of this kind would have had the most severe and far-reaching results, for most sacrifices were private ones. And how could it have been carried out while public sacrifices were still customary? In the dedication of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods. Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of syncretistic religion. Thus he commanded the heathen troops to make use of a prayer in which any monotheist could join, and which ran thus: "We acknowledge thee alone as god and king, we call upon thee as our helper. From thee have we received the victory, by thee have we overcome the foe. To thee we owe that good which we have received up to now, from thee do we hope for it in the future. To thee we offer our entreaties and implore thee that thou wilt preserve to us our emperor Constantine and his god-fearing sons for many years uninjured and victorious." The emperor went at least one step further when he withdrew his statue from the pagan temples, forbade the repair of temples that had fallen into decay, and suppressed offensive forms of worship. But these measures did not go beyond the syncretistic tendency which Constantine had shown for a long time. Yet he must have perceived more and more clearly that syncretism was impossible.

In the same way religious freedom and tolerance could not continue as a form of equality, the age was not ready for such a conception. It is true that Christian writers defended religious liberty; thus Tertullian said that religion forbids religious compulsion (Non est religionis cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debet non vi.--"Ad Scapulam", near the close); and Lactantius, moreover, declared: "In order to defend religion man must be willing to die, but not to kill." Origen also took up the cause of freedom. Most probably oppression and persecution had made men realize that to have one's way of thinking, one's conception of the world and of life, dictated to him was a mischief-working compulsion. In contrast to the smothering violence of the ancient State, and to the power and custom of public opinion, the Christians were the defenders of freedom, but not of individual subjective freedom, nor of freedom of conscience as understood today. And even if the Church had recognized this form of freedom, the State could not have remained tolerant. Without realizing the full import of his actions, Constantine granted the Church one privilege after another. As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics, including freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory state offices--such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy burden. The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx). The emperor granted many privileges to the Church for the reason that it took care of the poor and was active in benevolence. Perhaps he showed his Christian tendencies most pronouncedly in removing the legal disabilities which, since the time of Augustus, had rested on celibacy, leaving in existence only the leges decimarioe, and in recognizing an extensive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But it should not be forgotten that the Jewish communities had also their own jurisdiction, exemptions, and immunities, even if in a more limited degree. A law of 318 denied the competence of civil courts if in a suit an appeal was made to the court of a Christian bishop. Even after a suit had begun before the civil court, it would still be permissible for one of the parties to transfer it to the bishop's court. If both parties had been granted a legal hearing, the decision of the bishop was to be binding. A law of 333 commanded the state officials to enforce the decisions of the bishops, a bishop's testimony should be considered sufficient by all judges and no witness was to be summoned after a bishop had testified. These concessions were so far-reaching that the Church itself felt the great increase of its jurisdiction as a constraint. Later emperors limited this jurisdiction to cases of voluntary submission by both parties to the episcopal court.

Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly. But in this he only continued what earlier emperors, under the influence of Stoicism, had begun before him, and he left to his successors the actual work of their emancipation. Thus some emperors who reigned before Constantine had forbidden the exposure of children, although without success, as exposed children or foundlings were readily adopted, because they could be used for many purposes. The Christians especially exerted themselves to get possession of such foundlings, and consequently Constantine issued no direct prohibition of exposure, although the Christians regarded exposure as equal to murder; he commanded, instead, that foundlings should belong to the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the children they had exposed. Those who took such children obtained a property right in them and could make quite an extensive use of this; they were allowed to sell and enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such enslaving under any guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their children for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents could only obtain relief by selling their children if they did not wish to sell themselves. All later laws against such practices availed as little as those against emasculation and pandering. St. Ambrose vividly depicts the sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under pressure of creditors, or by the creditors themselves. All the many forms of institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of little avail. Constantine himself established asylums for foundlings; yet he recognized the right of parents to sell their children, and only excepted older children. He ruled that children who had been sold could be bought back in contradistinction to children who had been exposed; but this ruling was of no avail if the children were taken into a foreign country. Valentinian, therefore, prohibited the traffic in human beings with foreign lands. The laws forbidding such practices continually multiplied, but the greater part of the burden of saving the children fell on the Church.

Constantine was the first to prohibit the abduction of girls. The abductor and those who aided him by influencing the girl were threatened with severe punishment. In harmony with the views of the Church, Constantine rendered divorce more difficult, he made no changes where the divorce was agreed to by both parties, but imposed severe conditions when the demand for separation came from one side only. A man could put away his wife for adultery, poisoning, and pandering, and retain her dowry, but if he discarded her for any other cause, he was to return the dowry and was forbidden to marry again. If, nevertheless, he remarried, the discarded wife had the right to enter his house and take everything which the new wife had brought him. Constantine increased the severity of the earlier law forbidding the concubinage of a free woman with a slave, and the Church did not regard this measure with disfavour. On the other hand, his retention of the distinctions of rank in the marriage law was clearly contrary to the views of the Church. The Church rejected all class distinctions in marriage, and regarded informal marriages (the so-called concubinatus) as true marriages, in so far as they were lasting and monogamous. Constantine, however, increased the difficulties of the concubinatus, and forbade senators and the higher officials in the State and in the pagan priesthoods to contract such unions with women of lower rank (feminoe humiles), thus making it impossible for them to marry women belonging to the lower classes, although his own mother was of inferior rank. But in other respects the emperor showed his mother, Helena, the greatest deference. Other concubinatus besides those mentioned were placed at a disadvantage in regard to property, and the rights of inheritance of the children and the concubines were restricted. Constantine, however, encouraged the emancipation of slaves and enacted that manumission in the church should have the same force as the public manumission before State officials and by will (321). Neither the Christian nor the heathen emperors permitted slaves to seek their freedom without authorization of law, the Christian rulers sought to ameliorate slavery by limiting the power of corporal punishment; the master was allowed only to use a rod or to send a slave to prison, and the owner was not liable to punishment even if the slave died under these circumstances. But if death resulted from the use of clubs, stones, weapons or instruments of torture, the person who caused the death was to be treated as a murderer. As will be seen below, Constantine was himself obliged to observe this law when he sought to get rid of Licinianus. A criminal was no longer to be branded in the face, but only on the feet, as the human face was fashioned in the likeness of God.

When these laws are compared with the ordinances of those earlier emperors who were of humane disposition, they do not go far beyond the older regulations. In everything not referring to religion Constantine followed in the footsteps of Diocletian. In spite of all unfortunate experiences, he adhered to the artificial division of the empire, tried for a long time to avoid a breach with Licinius, and divided the empire among his sons. On the other hand, the imperial power was increased by receiving a religious consecration. The Church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. It was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater. From this point of view Constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality. For what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity; Constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself. Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven. It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta. He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son of Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars. Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath. The young Licinianus was flogged to death. Because Licinianus was not the son of his sister, but of a slave-woman, Constantine treated him as a slave. In this way Constantine evaded his own law regarding the mutilation of slaves After reading these cruelties it is hard to believe that the same emperor could at times have mild and tender impulses; but human nature is full of contradictions.

Constantine was liberal to prodigality, was generous in almsgiving, and adorned the Christian churches magnificently. He paid more attention to literature and art than we might expect from an emperor of this period, although this was partly due to vanity, as is proved by his appreciation of the dedication of literary works to him. It is likely that he practiced the fine arts himself, and he frequently preached to those around him. No doubt he was endowed with a strong religious sense, was sincerely pious, and delighted to be represented in an attitude of prayer, with his eyes raised to heaven. In his palace he had a chapel to which he was fond of retiring, and where he read the Bible and prayed. "Every day", Eusebius tells us, "at a fixed hour he shut himself up in the most secluded part of the palace, as if to assist at the Sacred Mysteries, and there commune with God alone ardently beseeching Him, on bended knees, for his necessities". As a catechumen he was not permitted to assist at the sacred Eucharistic mysteries. He remained a catechumen to the end of his life, but not because he lacked conviction nor because, owing to his passionate disposition, he desired to lead a pagan life. He obeyed as strictly as possible the precepts of Christianity, observing especially the virtue of chastity, which his parents had impressed upon him; he respected celibacy, freed it from legal disadvantages, sought to elevate morality, and punished with great severity the offenses against morals which the pagan worship bad encouraged. He brought up his children as Christians. Thus his life became more and more Christian, and thus gradually turned away from the feeble syncretism which at times he seemed to favour. The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another.

Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became. When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism, declaring to the bishops who had assembled around him that, after the example of Christ, he had desired to receive the saving seal in the Jordan, but that God had ordained otherwise, and he would no longer delay baptism. Laying aside the purple, the emperor, in the white robe of a neophyte, peacefully and almost joyfully awaited the end.

Of Constantine's sons the eldest, Constantine II, showed decided leanings to heathenism, and his coins bear many pagan emblems; the second and favourite son, Constantius, was a more pronounced Christian, but it was Arian Christianity to which he adhered. Constantius was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he closed all the temples and forbade sacrifices under pain of death. His maxim was: "Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum aboleatur insania" (Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be abolished). Their successors had recourse to religious persecution against heretics and pagans. Their laws (Cod. Theod., XVI, v) had an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and were the basis of the much-abused Inquisition. (See PERSECUTIONS; CONSTANTINOPLE; ROMAN EMPIRE.)

CHARLES G. HERBERMANN & GEORG GRUPP

Constantinople

(Gr. Konstantinoupolis; city of Constantine)

Capital, formerly of the Byzantine, now of the Ottoman, Empire.

THE MODERN CITY

Constantinople occupies one of the most beautiful and advantageous sites in the world, uniting as it does Europe with Asia and putting in communication the Black Sea and all Southern Russia with the greater part of Europe and Asia, and even with distant America. It is surrounded by water on all sides except the west, which is protected by walls. Its sea front is about eight miles in length. The air is generally pure, and the climate very temperate. Constantinople forms a special district (sanitary cordon) divided into three principal sections, two in Europe and one in Asia. The two European sections are Stamboul (ancient Byzantium), whose suburbs border the Sea of Marmora; Galata and Pera, more or less Europeanized quarters, with many villages rising in rows along the green hills that look down on the Golden Horn and the Bosporus. The Asiatic section is Scutari (Turk. Uskudar; Chrysopolis) and Kadi-Keui (Chalcedon), with their extensive suburbs on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, the pleasant coasts of the Gulf of Nicomedia, and the Isles of the Princes. The city is divided into ten quarters or circles, each with its own municipality. The population is estimated (1908) at 1,200,000 inhabitants, four-fifths of whom are in Europe. There are about 600,000 Turks or other Mussulmans; the remainder include, in order of numerical importance, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and foreigners of various nationalities.

The Bosporus separates Europe from Asia; it is about eighteen miles long and varies in width from about half a mile to a mile and a half. The Golden Horn separates Stamboul from Galata and Pera, extends inland for about four and one-half miles and ends abruptly at the Valley of the Sweet Waters beyond Eyoub. Two wooden bridges unite Galata with Stamboul, which latter section is mostly inhabited by Turks, and still preserves its ancient ramparts with their towers and gates.

The chief monuments of the city are: St. Sophia, the magnificent church built in the first half of the sixth century by the Emperor Justinian, now a mosque; about 2000 other mosques (e.g. the Suleimanieh, the Ahmedieh, the Bayazidieh, Mohammed's mosque, etc.); many ancient churches; beautiful fountains; imposing "turbés", or tombs of sultans and other great personages; the Seraskierat or war office, with its enormous tower; the Tcharshi, or bazaar (more than 10,000 merchants); Yedi-Kouleh or the Seven Towers Castle, where ambassadors and other men of note were often imprisoned; the palace of the public debt; the large post office; the old seraglio of the sultans. The imperial museum has a remarkable collection of sarcophagi and another of cuneiform texts. In the Galata section the Genoese Tower (over 150 feet) attracts attention, as in Pera the residences of the ambassadors. Beyond, on the European shore of the Bosporus are the large palaces of Dolma-Baghtché and Tcheragan, also the Yildiz Kiosk, the residence of the reigning sultan. On the Asiatic shore are the palace of Beylerbey, many beautiful mosques, and the great Mussulman cemetery at Scutari, the Selimieh barracks (largest in the world), the magnificent new school of medicine, quite close to which is the little port of Haïdar-Pasha, whence starts the railway line to Bagdad.

EARLY HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM

Constantinople was founded c. 658 b.c. by a Greek colony from Megara; the site was then occupied by the Thracian village of Lygos. The chief of the Megarian expedition was Byzas, after whom the city was naturally called Byzantion (Lat. Byzantium). Despite its perfect situation, the colony did not prosper at first; it suffered much during the Medic wars, chiefly from the satraps of Darius and Xerxes. Later on, its control was disputed by Lacedæmonians and Athenians; for two years (341-339 b.c.) it held out against Philip of Macedon. It succeeded in maintaining its independence even against victorious Rome, was granted the title and rights of an allied city, and its ambassadors were accorded at Rome the same honours as those given to allied kings; it enjoyed, moreover, all transit duties on the Bosporus. Cicero defended it in the Roman Senate, and put an end to the exactions of Piso. Later on, the Roman emperors entrusted the government of the city to prætors, at once civil and military magistrates, who maintained, however, the earlier democratic forms of government. For a while Vespasian placed it under the Governor of Mæsia. The city continued prosperous to the reign of Septimius Severus, when it sided with his rival, Peseennius Niger. After a siege of three years (193-196) Severus razed to the ground its walls and public monuments, and made it subject to Perinthus or Heraclea in Thrace. But he soon forgave this resistance, restored its former privileges, built there the baths of Zeuxippus, and began the hippodrome. It was devastated again by the soldiers of Gallienus in 262, but was rebuilt almost at once. In the long war between Constantine and Licinius (314-323) it embraced the fortunes of the latter, but, after his defeat at Chrysopolis (Scutari), submitted to the victor.

THE CHRISTIAN CITY

It has quite lately been established that Byzantium received its new name of Constantinople as early as the end of 324 (Centénaire de la société nationale des antiquaires de France, Paris, 1904, p. 281 sqq.). Nevertheless, the solemn inauguration of the new city did not occur until 11 May, 330; only after this date did the Court and Government settle permanently in the new capital. It was soon filled with sumptuous edifices like those of Rome; like the latter it was situated on seven hills and divided into fourteen regions; in the matter of privileges also it was similar to Rome. Among the new public buildings were a senate house, forums, a capitol, circuses, porticoes, many churches (particularly that of the Holy Apostles destined to be the burial-place of the emperors). The most beautiful statues of antiquity were gathered from various parts of the empire to adorn its public places. In general the other cities of the Roman world were stripped to embellish the "New Rome", destined henceforth to surpass them all in greatness and magnificence. Traces of Christianity do not appear here before the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In 212 Tertullian commemorates the joy of the Christians at the defeat of Pescennius Niger ("Ad Scapulam", iii: "Cæcilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino: Christiani gaudete"). About 190, an Antitrinitarian heretic, Theodotus the Currier, a native of Byzantium, was expelled from the Roman Church ("Phiosophoumena, VIII, xxxv; St. Epiphanius, "Adv. Hær.," liv). A probably reliable tradition makes the Byzantine Church a suffragan of Heraclea in Thrace at the beginning of the third century. In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Rom., xvi, 9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church.

The first historically known Bishop of Byzantium is St. Metrophanes (306-314), though the see had perhaps been occupied during the third century. It was at first subject to the metropolitan authority of Heraclea, and remained so, at least canonically, until 381, when the Second Ecumenical Council (can. iii) gave the Bishop of Constantinople the first place after the Bishop of Rome. (For the exact meaning of this canon see Hefele, Hist. des Counciles, tr., Leclercq, Paris, 1908, II, 24-27.) Fuller details are given in Fischer, "De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum" catalogis (Leipzig, 1894); Schermann, "Prophetenund Apostellegenden nebst Jüngerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte" (Leipzig, 1907); Vailhé, "Origines de l'Eglise de Constantinople" in "Echos d'Orient" (Paris, 1907), 287-295.

Constantine had chosen this city as the new capital of the Roman Empire, but owing to his wars and the needs of the State, he rarely resided there. His successors were even more frequently absent. Constantius, Julian, Jovian, and Valens are found more habitually on the Danube or the Euphrates than on the Bosporus; they reside more regularly in Antioch than in New Rome. It was only under Theodosius the Great (379-95) that Constantinople assumed definitive rank as capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, its ambitious prelates did not wait so long to forecast the future greatness of the new city. In 339 Eusebius, and in 360 Eudoxius, quitted the great Sees of Nicomedia and Antioch for what was yet, canonically, a simple bishopric. Both the city and its inhabitants suffered much during the Arian controversies; the Arian heretics held possession of the Church for forty years. Honourable mention is due to two of its bishops: St. Alexander, whose resistance and prayers were crowned by the sudden death of Arius in Constantinople; and St. Paul the Confessor, a martyr for the Faith. We must add the eighty martyrs put to death simultaneously by Emperor Valens. St. Gregory of Nazianzus restored religious peace in this Church early in the reign of the aforesaid Theodosius. From the council of 381 may be said to date the ecclesiastical fortunes of Constantinople. Its bishop began thenceforth to claim and to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the six provinces of Thrace, hitherto subject to Heraclea, and soon over the twenty-two provinces of Asia Minor and Pontus, originally subject to Ephesus and Cæsarea. These rights of supremacy, though usurped, were acknowledged by the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451), from which time the bishops of Constantinople ruled over about 420 dioceses. In 431 began an almost continuous conflict with the Roman Church, that was crowned with success in 733, when an Iconoclast emperor withdrew from the jurisdiction of Rome all ecclesiastical Illyricum, i. e. more than a hundred dioceses. About the end of the ninth century, when Photius broke with the Roman Church, his own patriarchate included 624 dioceses (51 metropolitan sees, 51 exempt archbishoprics, and 522 suffragan bishoprics). At that time the Roman Church certainly did not govern so great a number of sees. At this period, moreover, by its missionaries and its political influence, Constantinople attracted to Christianity the Slav nations, Serbs, Russians, Moravians, and Bulgars, and obtained in these northern lands a strong support against the Roman and Frankish West.

This ecclesiastical prosperity coincided with the political and municipal grandeur of the city. At the death of Theodosius the Great (395), when the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, Constantinople remained the centre and capital of the Eastern Empire. The Western Empire was destined soon to fall before the onslaughts of the barbarians. While its provinces were held by uncouth German tribes, Constantinople alone remained to represent Christian civilization and the greatness of the Roman name. Simultaneously the city was enlarged and embellished, particularly under Theodosius II, Justinian, Heraclius, and Basil the Macedonian. In 413 it reached its actual (1908) size on the right bank of the Golden Horn, under the city prefect, Anthemius. In 625 Heraclius added the famous quarter of Blachernæ with its venerated church of the Blessed Virgin, whose image was considered as the palladium of the city. The circumference of the walls was then (and still is) eleven or twelve miles. They were often rebuilt, especially under Tiberius III (c. 700), Anastasius II (714), Leo III (740), Nicephorus I (803), Theophilus (831), Michael VIII (1262), Andronicus II (1316), John VII (between 1431-1444). To protect the territory of Thrace from the invasions of the barbarians, Anastasius I, in the early part of the sixth century, built a great wall about fifty miles in length and about twenty feet in breadth from Silistria to the Lake of Derkoi. The ramparts of Constantinople had many gates: the principal one was the Golden Gate, the terminus of the Triumphal Way. On the Sea of Marmora numerous havens gave shelter to boats and barques; the present unique port of the Golden Horn had not yet been created. The strongly fortified Great Palace was a real town. Other splendid palaces adorned the city (Boucoleon, Chalké, Blachernæ); many graced the European and Asiatic suburbs. Hundreds of churches and monasteries, thousands of clerics, of monks, and nuns, attested an intensely religious life. The church of St. Sophia alone, the glory of Justinian's reign, owned 365 estates. How vast these domains were may be judged from a law of Heraclius (627) that established 625 clerics as the number necessary for the service of St. Sophia. The little church of Blachernæ had 75 endowed clerics. The names of at least 463 churches are known, 64 of which were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. As early as 536, 68 superiors of local monasteries were present at a council in the city.

So many rich churches and monasteries, imperial or private palaces, not to speak of the luxury of the court and the great imperial dignitaries, naturally excited the covetousness of barbarian peoples. Constantinople had, therefore, to sustain numberless sieges; it was attacked in 378 by the Goths, by the Avars and Persians during the reign of Heraclius (610-41), by the Arabs during the reign of Constantine Pogonatus (668-85), and again by the Arabs under Moslemeh in 717; many times also by Bulgarians, Patzinaks, Russians, and Khazars. But the city always defied its besiegers, thanks to the solidity of its walls, often to the valour of its soldiers, but chiefly to the gold that it distributed in profusion. More grievous, perhaps, were the domestic conflicts that broke out in almost every new reign: the quarrels between the Blue and Green factions that clamoured for imperial favour in the races of the hippodrome; the conflagrations and earthquakes that sometimes levelled the city with the ground, e.g. the conflagration that broke out during the Nika revolt (532), on which occasion Justinian nearly lost his throne, more than 80,000 persons were killed, and fire destroyed the greater part of the city.

HERESY AND SCHISM

When Photius (d. 891) began the schism consummated by Michael Cærularius in 1054, the Byzantine Church had, since the death of Emperor Constantine in 337, been formally out of communion with the Roman Church during 248 years (55 years on account of Arianism, 11 on account of the condemnation of St. John Chrysostom, 35 on account of Zeno's Henoticon, 41 on account of Monothelism, 90 on account of Iconoclasm, 16 on account of the adulterous marriage of Constantine VI). On the whole, therefore, Constantinople had been out of communion with the Apostolic See one out of every two years. During this period nineteen patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics, some of them quite famous, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus. On the other hand must be mentioned several orthodox bishops, e.g. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Flavian, St. Germanus, St. Tarasius, St. Methodius, and St. Ignatius, the opponent of Photius, whose virtues and literary fame compensate for the scandalous heterodoxy of their confrères. Nor can we omit illustrious monks and hymnographers like St. Romanus (Melodus), the greatest liturgical poet of the Byzantine Church, St. Maximus Confessor, St Theodore, the noble abbot of the famous monastery of Studium (Stoudion), and many others who suffered martyrdom during the reigns of Iconoclast emperors.

Many councils were held in Constantinople, sometimes against heresies, sometimes in favour of them. Chief among these councils are: the ecumenical councils of 381, 553, 681, and 869; the Trullan Council (692), very important for the history of canonical legislation; the councils of 712 and 878 which ratified, respectively, Monothelism and the revolt of Photius against Rome. The schism of Photius was not at once followed by its worst consequences. The learned but ambitious patriarch was yet living when union with the Roman Church was re-established by Emperor Leo the Wise in 886; he obliged Photius to quit the patriarchal throne. From that time to the patriarchate of Michael Cærularius (1043-1049), in spite of the Filioque question, relations with the papacy were generally cordial. There were indeed, at the beginning of the tenth century, some difficulties caused by the emperor's fourth marriage, but in this conflict both the opposing patriarchs attempted to obtain from the Roman Church justification of their conduct. It was only under Michael Cærularius that the schismatic condition was finally confirmed, almost without any apparent motive and only through the bad will of this patriarch. After long and sharp disputes between the two Churches, the pope's legates, with the approbation of the imperial court, deposited, 15 July, 1054, on the altar of St. Sophia the Bull of excommunication against the patriarch. This act resulted in a popular revolution. Five days later Michael Cærularius replied by excommunicating the pope and the "azymite" Latins. The weak-minded and lewd emperor, Constantine Monomachus, dared not resist the all-powerful patriarch. It must be noted, however, that, unhappily, the idea of schism had long been familiar to the minds and hearts of the Greeks. The first period of the schism was coeval, especially at Constantinople, with a remarkable literary revival, inaugurated as early as the tenth century by the Macedonian dynasty and carried to its perfection under the Comneni and the Palæologi. This revival, unfortunately, did not affect favourably the morality of the population, being chiefly an unconscious return to models of antiquity, indeed a kind of neo-paganism. We owe to it, however, beautiful works in literature, architecture, and painting.

IMPERIAL SUCCESSION; CRUSADES; LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

After the division of the Roman Empire in 395, Constantinople beheld the passage of many great dynasties: that of Theodosius, prolonged by adoption until 602; that of Heraclius, from 610 to 711, with intrusion of several usurpers; that of Leo the Isaurian, from 717 to 802; the Amorium dynasty from 820 to 867; that of Basil the Macedonian from 867 to 1057; finally from 1081 to the Frankish conquest in 1204, that of the Comneni and the Angeli. Succession, of course, was not always regular; even in the legitimate dynasties murder and cruelty, it is well known, often marked the accession of an emperor. Sometimes the streets of the capital were on the same day decked with flowers and drenched with blood. Nevertheless, till the middle of the eleventh century, the empire held its own in Asia Minor against the Arabs. The latter were now gradually supplanted by their coreligionists, the Turks, who, towards the end of that century, occupied most of the Asiatic peninsula and set up their capital at Nicæa, not far from Constantinople. Then began the Crusades, that great overflow of the West towards the East, started by the pious wish of all Christian Europe to deliver the Holy Sepulchre. Constantinople saw the crusaders for the first time in 1096. The contact between the two civilizations was not cordial; the Greeks gave generally to the crusaders an unkindly reception. They looked on them as enemies no less than the Turks, except that the crusaders, marching in the name of Christ and backed by all the strength of the West, appeared much more dangerous than the Mussulman Turks. On the other hand the Franks were only too ready to treat the Greeks as mere unbelievers, and, but for the opposition of the popes, would have begun the Crusades with the capture of Constantinople.

These sad quarrels and the fratricidal conflicts of Christian nations lasted nearly a century, until in 1182 Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, a ferocious tyrant, ordered a general massacre of the Latins in his capital. In 1190 the Greek patriarch, Dositheus, solemnly promised indulgences to any Greek who would murder a Latin. These facts, together with the selfish views of the Venetians and the domestic divisions of the Greeks, were enough to provoke a conflict. The Greek Emperor Alexius III had dethroned his brother and stripped his nephew of all rights (1195); the latter sought a shelter in the West (1201), and, together with his brother-in-law, Emperor Philip of Swabia, with Venice, and Boniface of Montferrat (chief of the projected crusade), he turned aside the Fourth Crusade and directed the knights, first to the siege of Zara in Dalmatia, and afterwards to Constantinople. In spite of the formal veto of Innocent III, the crusaders laid siege to the city, which soon surrendered (17 July, 1203). Emperor Alexius III took flight. His brother, Isaac Angelus, was taken from prison and crowned emperor, with his son Alexius IV. The crusaders had hoped that the new emperors would keep their promises and reunite the two Churches; confident of this they wrote to Innocent III (August, 1203) to justify their behaviour. But the imperial promise was not kept; indeed, it could not be executed. In November, 1205, Alexius IV broke off all relations with the crusaders. Thereupon the hostility between the Greeks and the Latins was in almost daily evidence; brawls and conflagrations were continually taking place. Alexius IV and his father were dethroned and put to death (February, 1204) by a usurper who took the name of Alexius V Murtzuphlos. The latter made haste to put his capital in a state of defence, whereupon the crusaders began a second siege. After several onslaughts the city was taken (12 and 13 April, 1204) amid scenes of great cruelty; the slaughter was followed by an unbridled plunder of the countless treasures heaped up during so many centuries by the Byzantine emperors. The holy relics especially excited the covetousness of the Latin clerics; Villehardouin asserts that there were but few cities in the West that received no sacred booty from this pillage. The official booty alone, according to the same historian, amounted to about eleven millions of dollars whose purchasing power was then of course much greater than at this day. The following 9 May, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, became emperor; Boniface of Montferrat obtained Thessalonica and Macedonia; the knights, various feudal fees; Venice, the islands and those regions of the empire that assured her maritime supremacy. This new Latin Empire, organized according to feudal law, never took deep root. It was unable to hold its own against the Greeks (who had immediately created two empires in Asia, at Nicæa and at Trebizond, a despotate in Epirus and other small States) nor against the Bulgarians, Comans, and Serbs. After a much-disturbed existence it disappeared in 1261, and Constantinople became again the centre of Greek power with Michael Palæologus as emperor.

LATIN PATRIARCHATE

Together with the Latin Empire a Latin patriarchate had been established in 1204 at Constantinople, on which occasion the Greek patriarch took refuge at Nicæa. Notwithstanding the missions of Cardinal Benedict a Sancta Susanna (1205-1207) and Pelagius of Albano (1213), negotiations, and even persecutions, the Latins failed to induce all their Greek subjects to acknowledge the authority of the pope. In its best days the Latin patriarchate never numbered more than twenty-two archbishoprics and fifty-nine suffragan bishoprics, situated in Europe, in the islands, and even in Asia Minor. However, the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople outlived the Latin Empire, after the fall of which the Latin patriarchs resided in Greece or in Italy. From 1302 the Holy See reserved to itself the appointment to this office and united with the patriarchate first the Archbishopric of Candia, later the Bishopric of Negropont; this was still the situation as late as 1463. A consistorial decree of 1497 reserved this high title to cardinals; the rule, however, was subject to many exceptions. In modern times a contrary practice has prevailed; the Latin titular Patriarch of Constantinople ceases to bear this title only on entrance to the Sacred College. Of course, after the fall of the Latin or Frankish Empire in 1261, the Latin patriarch could not deal directly with the Catholics of Constantinople; they were committed to the care of patriarchal vicars, simple priests chosen usually among the superiors of religious orders resident in the city, Observantine or Conventual Franciscans, and Dominicans. This lasted until 1651, when the Latin patriarch was allowed by the sultan to have in Constantinople a patriarchal suffragan bishop, who was free to administer the diocese in the name of the patriarch. Finally, in 1772, the Holy See suppressed the office of patriarchal suffragan an appointed patriarchal vicars Apostolic, which system is yet in existence.

RESTORATION OF GREEK EMPIRE; EFFORTS AT REUNION OF THE CHURCHES

Having anticipated a little we may here take up the thread of our narrative. By the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, Michael Palæologus had drawn on himself the enmity of some Western princes, especially of Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis and heir to the rights of the aforesaid Latin emperors of Constantinople. To forestall the crusade with which he was threatened, the Greek emperor opened negotiations with the pope and accepted the union of the Churches. It was proclaimed at the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274, and was confirmed at Constantinople by several particular councils held under the Greek patriarch, John Beccus, a sincere Catholic. It was not, however, accepted by the Greek people who remained always inimical to the West, and, on the emperor's death in 1282, it was rejected at a council held in the Blachernæ church. Thenceforth the rulers of Constantinople had to reckon with the ambitious claims of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, and of other Latin pretenders to the imperial crown. The city itself was remit by the theological disputes of Barlaamites and Palamists arising from Hesychasm (q. v.), also by the domestic dissensions of the imperial family during the reigns of the two Andronici, John Palæologus, and John Cantacuzene. With the aid of Turkish mercenaries John Cantacuzene (the hope of the Palamists) withstood the legitimate emperor and conquered the city.

The Byzantine Empire was now in face of its last and greatest peril. The smaller Greek Empire of Trebizond controlled since 1204 a part of its Asiatic provinces. The Fourth Crusade had caused almost all the islands and a great part of its possessions in Europe to fall into the hands of the Venetians, Genoese, Pisans, and local dynasts. It feared most, however, the new empire of the Osmanlis that was rapidly overflowing all Asia Minor. The Osmanlis were originally a small Turkish tribe of Khorassan; in the thirteenth century they had settled near Dorylæum (Eski-Shehir), whence they gradually annexed all the sultanates and principalities of the Seljuk Turks and others. As early as 1326 Brusa in Bithynia had become the centre of their power. A Genoese fleet soon conveyed their army into Europe, where they took Gallipoli in 1397. Thenceforth, while the popes were especially anxious to save the Greek East and Constantinople, the Byzantines, excited by their priests and monks, appeared daily more hostile to the West and exhausted their opportunities in useless theological disputes. The memorable defeat of the Serbs and Bulgarians at Kossovo in 1389, and that of the crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, seemed to indicate the hopelessness of the Byzantine cause, when the Mongol invasion of Timur-Leng (Tamerlane) and the defeat of Sultan Bayazid at Angora in 1402 combined to assure another half-century of existence to the doomed empire.

Scarcely had Manuel II heard of the Turkish disaster when he pulled down the mosque in his capital and abandoned his negotiations at Rome, where he had initiated proposals of peace, but only for political reasons. However, the Turkish power had not been destroyed on the plain of Angora. From June to September, 1422, Sultan Murad II laid siege to Constantinople, which he nearly captured. Though finally repulsed, the Turks tightened daily their control over all approaches to the city, which only a new crusade could have relieved. At the Council of Florence, therefore (1439), the Greeks again declared themselves Catholics. This formal reunion, however, imposed by the emperor and again rejected by the Greek nation, could not in the beginning be proclaimed even at Constantinople, in spite of the election of a patriarch favourable to Rome, and of Western promises to help the Greeks with men and money. Mark of Ephesus and after him Gennadius Scholarius were omnipotent with clergy and people, and infused into them fresh hatred of the Latins. Nevertheless, the promised crusade took place under the direction of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini. János Hunyady and Iskender-Beg (Scanderbeg) performed miracles of valour, but in vain. The crusaders were completely defeated at Varna in 1444, and nothing was left to Constantinople but to perish honourably. The reunion with Rome, as accepted at Florence, was at last proclaimed officially in St. Sophia by Cardinal Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev (12 Dec., 1452). It was thus fated that Emperor Constantine Dragases, the last heir of the great Constantine, was to die in the Catholic Faith.

FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE; CAPITAL OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE

When the tragic hour struck, the emperor had only about 7000 men, including all foreign succour. Since March, 1453, the Turks, to the number of 200,000, had invested the city; the preceding year they had built on the Bosporus the redoubtable fortress of Rumeli-Hissar. Their fleet also held the entrance to the Dardanelles, but was prevented from entering the Golden Horn by a strong iron chain that barred its mouth. But Mohammed II caused seventy of his ships to slide on greased planks behind Galata; in this way they entered the Golden Horn (22 April). He then cast across it a bridge of boats broad enough to allow the passage of five soldiers abreast, while his troops, constantly renewed, kept up without ceasing their attacks by land. Eventually the defenders were exhausted by the toils of a continuous and hopeless conflict, while their ranks grew steadily thinner through death or wounds. The population gave no help and was content to taunt the Latins, while waiting for the miracle of Heaven that was to save them. Finally, 29 May, 1453, about 4 o'clock in the morning, a furious assault of the Turks broke down the walls and gates of the city, and the besiegers burst in from every side. Emperor Constantine fell like a hero at the gate of St. Romanus. St. Sophia was immediately transformed into a mosque, and during three days the unhappy city was abandoned to unspeakable excesses of cruelty and debauchery. The next year, at the demand of the sultan himself, Gennadius Scholarius, Rome's haughty adversary, was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, and soon the Greek Church was reestablished, almost in its former position.

Thus was granted the sacrilegious prayer of so many Greeks, blinded by unreasoning hate, that henceforth, not the tiara, but the turban should rule in the city of Constantine. Even the name of the city was changed. The Turks call it officially (in Arabic) Der-es-Saadet, Door of Happiness, or (chiefly on coins) Konstantinieh. Their usual name for it is Stamboul, or rather Istamboul, a corruption of the Greek expression eis ten polin (pronounced stimboli), perhaps under the influence of a form, Islamboul, which could pass for "the city of Islam". Most of the churches, like St. Sophia, were gradually converted into mosques. This was the fate of SS. Sergius and Bacchus -- a beautiful monument built by Justinian, commonly called "the little St. Sophia"; of the church of the monastery of Khora, whose splendid mosaics and pictures, mostly of the fourteenth century, are among the principal curiosities of the city; of the churches of the celebrated Pantocrator and Studium monasteries, etc. Other churches were demolished and replaced by various buildings; thus the church of the Holy Apostles gave way to the great mosque built by the conquering Sultan Mohammed II. The imperial tombs in this church were violated; some of their gigantic red porphyry sarcophagi were taken to the church of St. Irene. The latter is the only church taken from the Greeks that has not been changed into a mosque or demolished; it became, and is yet an arsenal, or rather a museum of ancient weapons.

The sultans in turn endowed their new capital with many beautiful monuments. Mohammed II built the castle of Yedi-Kouleh, the Tchinili-Kiosk (now a museum), the mosques of Cheik Bokhari, of the Janizaries, of Kassim-Pasha, of Eyoub, where every sultan at his accession is obliged to be girt with the sword of Othman, etc. Bayazid II built the Bayazidieh (1458). Soliman the Magnificent built the Suleimanieh, the most beautiful Turkish monument in Constantinople. His architect Sinan constructed fifty other mosques in the empire. Ahmed I built (1610) the Ahmedieh on the foundations of the imperial Great Palace, a pretty fountain near St. Sophia, etc. The buildings of the old seraglio at Seraglio Point are also of Turkish origin; nothing is left of the Byzantine imperial palaces that once stood there. The Blachernæ palace has also disappeared; its church was accidentally burned in the seventeenth century. Not far distant are the important ruins of the palace of the Porphyrogenitus. When the Turks took Constantinople, the hippodrome was already in ruinous decay. There remain yet three precious monuments of ancient imperial splendour: the Egyptian obelisk brought thither by Theodosius the Great, the Serpentine Column brought from Delphi by Constantine, and the Byzantine monument known as the Walled-up Column. Near them has been constructed, on the plans and at the expense of the German Emperor, William II, a fountain in Byzantine style. The Turks have also respected some other relics of antiquity, especially the columns of Constantine, Marcian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the aqueduct of Valens, and many of the great subterraneous cisterns.

THE TURKISH CITY

This is not the place to narrate the later history of the city, so often the scene of sanguinary events, revolts of the Janizaries, palace-revolutions, etc. In 1826 Mahmud II suppressed the redoubtable prætorians, but the tragic domestic revolutions go on as before. In 1807 a British fleet threatened the city, which was courageously defended by Sultan Selim III and the French ambassador, General Sebastiani. In 1854 Anglo-French armies encamped at Constantinople before and after the Crimean expedition against Russia. In 1878 the Russians advanced to San Stefano, a little village in the European suburbs, and dictated there the treaty of that name. In 1821 the Greek patriarch, Gregory V, with many bishops and laymen, was hanged on the occasion of the outbreak of the Greek War for Independence. In 1895-1896 the capital, as well as the provinces, saw many Armenians massacred by the Kurds, with the complicity, or rather by order of the Government. Even the dreadful physical catastrophes of former times have been renewed; great conflagrations in 1864 and 1870 destroyed entire quarters at Stamboul and Pera. In the latter place many thousands of lives were lost (most of the houses are built of timber). In 1894 an earthquake laid low a great part of the Bazaar and killed several thousand persons. The city is now undergoing a slow process of cleansing; it is lit by gas, and there are some tramways in its streets, most of which are still very narrow and dirty, and are at all times obstructed by vagrant dogs. A cable railway joins Galata to Pera.

NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS STATISTICS

The population, we have already said, is (1908) at least 1,000,000, perhaps 1,200,000; Turkish statistics are very uncertain. The Turks seem to form about three-fifths of this population. There are more than 2000 mosques, near which are generally found elementary schools for boys and even for girls; often also medressehs or Mussulman theological schools. The tekkés are Mussulman monasteries for dervishes of various orders. Superior instruction is given at the Lyceum of Galata Seraglio. It has about 1200 pupils (mostly Mussulmans), and instruction is given in both Turkish and French. Efforts are being made to transform this college into a university. There are also about 20 secondary schools, a university of law, a school of medicine, military schools, and other professional and special schools. The libraries annexed to the great mosques contain precious Eastern manuscripts. There are many Turkish hospitals, several of which are in charge of Catholic Sisters of Charity, an asylum for the poor, a Pasteur institute, and other charitable foundations. The Persian Mussulmans, generally Shiites, have their own religious organization, with a hospital at Stamboul, conducted by Sisters of Charity. The Jewish population increases rapidly, and is of two kinds: the Spanish Jews who came to Turkey in the sixteenth century when expelled from Spain, and still speak a bad Spanish; others, who came and still come from Russia, Rumania, Austria, Germany, etc. The latter often obtain good situations; not so the former, whose social status is low and unhappy. There is also among the Jews of the city a diversity of rites, synagogues, schools. and works of beneficence. The Christians seem to number over 300,000. If we except an insignificant body of Jacobites and their bishop, the rest may be divided as Monophysites, Protestants, Orthodox Greeks, and Catholics. The Monophysites are Armenians, who call themselves Gregorians, after their apostle, St. Gregory Illuminator. They number about 100,000, with a patriarch resident at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul), many churches, 53 elementary schools, 2 colleges, a large charitable establishment at Yédi-Kouleh, etc.

Protestantism is represented by English, American, German, and other foreign colonies, also by about one thousand Armenian converts. Its chief institutions, apart from several churches, are the Bible house at Stamboul with its branches (homes for sailors and foreign girls), Robert College at Rumeli-Hissar on the Bosporus (a large American school founded in 1863, with about 600 pupils), and a high school for girls at Scutari. There are also some elementary Protestant schools and a special mission for the Jews, finally an English and a German hospital. The Schismatic Greeks who call themselves Orthodox, number about 150,000, some thousands of whom are Hellenes, i. e. subjects of the Kingdom of Greece. The Ecumenical patriarch, who resides in the Fanar (Greek quarter, along the Golden Horn), is the bishop of the diocese (there are metropolites at Kadi-Keui and at Makri-Keui, the latter with the title of Derki). He is aided in the administration of his office by the Great Protosyncellus. There are 40 parishes, 12 of which are first class, 11 second class, and 17 third class. The principal churches prefer instead of a simple priest, a titular bishop or chorepiscopus: they are five in number. Recent statistics show 72 schools, 64 of which give elementary and middle, and 8 superior teaching. Amon the higher schools are included the so-called Great National School in the Fanar (said to date from the Middle Ages), the commercial and theological schools at Halki, etc. The theological school is a seminary for future bishops of the Greek Church. These Greek schools have 398 teachers and 13,217 pupils; the elementary schools have 10,665 pupils, and the superior schools 2562. We may add that many Greek boys and girls, also Armenians, are taught in foreign schools, chiefly in those of the French religious congregations and at Robert College. The Greeks have a large charitable establishment at Balekli and an orphanage. Quite important also are their various associations (syollogi), the principal one being the important learned body known as the Literary Greek Society, with a rich library. The libraries of the Metochion, of the Holy Sepulchre, and the theological school at Halki are also remarkable for their manuscripts. For the general organization of the Greek Schismatics, see GREEK CHURCH. The Russians have at Constantinople 3 monasteries, a school, a hospital, and an archæological institute, with a rich library. The Serbs and Rumanians have also their national establishments. There are in the capital about 15,000 Bulgarians. They are considered schismatics by the Greek Church, from which they have completely separated. Their exarch, who has jurisdiction over all native Bulgarians and those of European Turkey, resides at Chichli (pronounced shishli), where there are also a seminary, a school, and a hospital for Bulgarians. His cathedral is at Balata, Stamboul.

CATHOLIC LIFE AND STATISTICS

The Catholics include those of the Roman or Latin Rite, and others of Eastern rites often called Uniats. Among the latter, the Catholic Armenians deserve most attention; they number about 5000. Their patriarch resides at Pera, and to their special organization belong: 6 elementary and 3 middle schools, also a large charitable establishment for orphans and for poor or sick people. They have four congregations conducted as follows: The Mechitarists of Vienna have 2 residences, 19 monks; the Mechitarists of Venice, 1 residence, 8 monks; the Antonines, 1 residence, 8 monks; Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, 3 residences, about 100 nuns. The Melchites or Arabic-speaking Syrians of Byzantine Rite have a church with 3 priests, one of whom acts as vicar of his patriarch for all affairs of the "nation" that come before the Sublime Porte. The Catholic patriarchs of the Chaldeans and the Syrians are similarly represented by vicars to whom are subject the few faithful of their rites present in the city. The Catholic Greeks, few in number as yet, are subject to the Apostolic delegate; they have two parishes, at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul) and Kadi-Keui, conducted by the Assumptionists, and a mission at Pera, conducted by the Fathers of the Holy Trinity. The former have also missions for the Greeks at Cæsarea in Cappadocia and at Peramos in the Peninsula of Cyzicus; the latter at Malgara and Daoudili in Thrace. The Catholic Bulgarians have at Galata their archbishop and one priest. The Catholic Georgians are few and are subject to the Apostolic delegate; most of them belong to the Latin or the Armenian Rite.

The Catholics of the Latin Rite, as already stated, are ruled by an Apostolic vicar. Though a titular archbishop he enjoys ordinary jurisdiction and since 1868 is Apostolic delegate for the Catholics of Eastern Rites. He resides at Pancaldi and has there his procathedral. His authority is not acknowledged by the Sublime Porte and he is obliged to use the French embassy in his relations with the Turkish Government. The limits of his vicariate are: in Europe the Vicariate of Sofia, the Archdioceses of Uscub and Durazzo, and the Apostolic Delegation of Athens; in Asia, the Diocese of Tiraspol, the Apostolic Delegations of Mesopotamia and Aleppo, and the Archbishopric of Smyrna. The Latin Catholics subject to him must number (1908) between 30,000 and 35,000, about 22,000 of whom are at Constantinople. Other principal centres are, in Europe: Salonica, Gallipoli, Cavalla, Monastir, Rodosto, Dede-Aghatch, and Adrianople, with about 6000 souls; in Asia: Brusa, Ismid, Adampol, Zongoul-Dagh, Dardanelles, Eski-Shehir, Angora, Trebizond, Samsoun, and Erzeroum with about 3000 souls. Most Latin Catholics are of foreign nationalities and come from Greece, Italy, France, Austria, etc.

Almost all the religious works of the Apostolic vicariate are conducted by religious orders or congregations. The secular clergy counts only about ten members; they possess the two parishes of Pancaldi (pro-cathedral) and the Dardanelles. There are fourteen parishes (five principal) in Constantinople and its suburbs. Outside the capital, the vicariate comprises 7 other parishes and 23 missionary stations. There are several seminaries, but none for the vicariate itself: a Greek preparatory seminary at Koum-Kapou (Stamboul), a Bulgarian preparatory seminary at Kara-Aghatch (Adrianople), a Greek-Bulgarian theological seminary at Kadi-Keui, conducted by the Assumptionists, with respectively 30, 35, and 10 pupils; the Eastern Seminary, preparatory and theological, founded at Pera in 1889 by French Capuchins for Latin and Eastern Rite pupils of every Eastern diocese, with 45 to 50 pupils; the preparatory Seraphic Seminary conducted since 1894 at San Stefano by Austrian Capuchins, 30 pupils; a Bulgarian preparatory and theological seminary at Zeitenlik (Salonica), conducted by the Lazarists, 58 pupils. Eighty elementary or middle schools are conducted by the aforesaid religious congregations. There are 74 primary and boarding schools, for boys or girls, with 11,400 pupils (7030 girls and 4370 boys), 6 (properly so called) colleges for boys with 1410 pupils and a commercial institute. Moreover, 600 male and female orphans are trained in 6 orphanages. A professional school has just been founded. More than half of these schools are situated in Constantinople or its suburbs. Many of the pupils are not Catholics, and many are Mussulmans or Jews. There is at Feri-Keui a large and beautiful cemetery.

CATHOLIC ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS

Orders of Men

Augustinians of the Assumption, 13 residences, 51 priests (including 6 of Greek and 6 of Slav Rite), and 28 students or lay brothers, 3 seminaries, 6 parishes, 7 schools. French Capuchins, 2 residences, 59 monks (25 students and 10 lay brothers). 1 seminary, 1 scholasticate, and the church of St. Louis, parish of the French embassy. Austrian Capuchins, 1 residence, with 1 parish, 1 seminary and 1 novitiate, 10 monks. Italian Capuchins, 3 residences, 8 priests, and 4 lay brothers. Conventuals, 6 residences, 5 parishes, 21 priests, and 10 lay brothers. Franciscans, 4 residences, 2 parishes, with 10 priests and 6 lay brothers. Dominicans, 3 residences, 1 parish, 9 priests, and 3 lay brothers. Georgian Benedictines of the Immaculate Conception, 3 residences, 2 parishes 1 school, with 13 religious (2 priests of Georgian Rite). Jesuits, 6 residences, 42 religious, about 20 priests, 9 schools. Austrian Lazarists, 1 residence, 1 college, 12 religious. French Lazarists, 7 residences, 71 religious (56 priests), 2 colleges, 1 seminary, several schools, 1 parish. Greek Fathers of the Holy Trinity of Pera, 3 residences, 6 priests, 3 schools. Polish Resurrectionists, 3 residences, about 30 religious (12 priests, several of the Slav Rite), 1 college. Brothers of the Christian Schools, 150 brothers, 10 residences, 1 college, 1 commercial and 10 elementary schools. Brothers of Ploermel, 10 brothers, aiding the Assumptionists in their schools. Marist Brothers, 8 residences, 4 schools, 46 brothers, aid other religious in 4 more schools. Italian Salesians of Dom Bosco, 1 technical school.

Orders of Women

Carmelites, 6 nuns. Dominican Sisters of Mondovi, 2 schools, 14 nuns. Sisters of Charity, 17 establishments, 210 nuns; they conduct among others three Turkish hospitals, the Persian, French, Italian, and Austrian hospitals, 2 asylums, 7 orphanages, 13 schools. Franciscan Sisters of Calais, 1 residence, 10 sisters for care of sick people at home. Franciscan Sisters of Gemona (Italy), 4 residences, 30 sisters, 5 schools. Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Ivrea (Italy), 3 residences, 35 sisters, 1 hospital, 2 schools. Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Lourdes, 1 residence, 14 sisters, for the adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and care of sick people. Oblates of the Assumption, 8 residences, 94 sisters, 7 schools, 1 hospital, 1 novitiate for native girls. Oblates of the Assumption of Nîmes, 15 sisters, 3 schools. Little Sisters of the Poor, 1 asylum, 16 sisters. Sisters of St. Joseph of the Apparition, 2 residences, 30 sisters, 2 schools. Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons, 3 residences, 39 sisters, 3 schools, 1 hospital. Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, 120 sisters, 2 residences, 2 boarding, and 2 elementary schools. Georgian Servants of Our Lady, 2 residences, 2 schools, 15 sisters. Bulgarian Eucharistine Sisters, 5 residences with schools, 30 sisters. Resurrectionist Sisters, 5 sisters, 1 school. Missionary Sisters of the Most Holy Heart of Mary, 8 sisters, 1 hospital. Most of these residences have dispensaries, with a physician, where remedies are supplied gratuitously to the poor. To the works of these congregations must be added pious works conducted by lay persons: St. Vincent de Paul Conferences (6 at Constantinople); the Sympnia, an association which conducts a school for Catholic Hellenes, with 90 pupils, various associations and brotherhoods, etc.

THE CHRISTIAN CITY
COUSIN, Histoire de Constantinople depuis Justinien jusqu'à la fin de l'empire (8 vols., Paris, 1671-1674); HUTTON, Constantinople (London 1900); BARTH, Constantinople (Paris, 1903); DU CANGE, Constantinopolis christiana in De Byzantin histori scriptoribus (Paris, 1687), XXII; BANDURI, Imperium orientale sive antiquitates Constantinopolitan (2 vol. fol., Venice, 1729); MORDTMANN, Esquisse topographique de Constantinople (Lille, 1892); VON HAMMER, Constantinopolis und der Bosporos (Budapest, 1822); BYZANTIOS, Constantinople (Greek, Athens, 1851); CONSTANTIOS, Constantiniade ou description de Constantinople ancienne et moderne (Constantinople, 1846); RICHTER, Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte (Vienna, 1897); GEDEON, Constantinople in BOUTYRAS (Greek), Dictionary of History and Geography (Constantinople, 1881), III, 929-1121; RIANT Exuvi sacr Constantinopolitan (Geneva, 1877); BOUVY, Souvenirs chrétiens de Constantinople (Paris, 1896); CUPERUS, Tractatus pr liminaris de patriarchis Constantinopolitanis in Acta SS., ed. PALMÉ, August, I, vi-ix, 1-272; LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus (Paris, 1740), I, 1-350, III, 793-836; GEDEON, Patriarchikoi pinakes (Constantinople, 1887).
SIEGES OF CONSTANTINOPLE
GERLAND, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel (Hamburg, 1904); KRAUSE, Die Eroberungen von Konstantinopel im 13. und 15. Jahrhundert (Halle, 1850); PEARS, The Fall of Constantinople, being the Story of the Fourth Crusade (London, 1885); IDEM, The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks (London, 1903); STAMATIADES, History of the Capture of Byzantium by the Franks and of Their Domination (Greek, Athens, 1885); KALLIGAS, Essays on Byzantine History from the Former to the Latter Capture of Constantinople (Greek, Athens, 1894); VLASTO, Les derniers jours de Constantinople en 1453 (Paris, 1883); POUJOULAT, Histoire de La conquête et de l'occupation de Constantinople par les Latins (Tours, 1855); D'OUTREMANN, Constantinopolis Belgica sive de rebus gestis a Balduino et Henrico, imperatoribus Constantinopolis (Tournai, 1643); MORDTMANN, Belagerung und Eroberung Konstantinopels durch die Turken im Jahre 1453 (Stuttgart, 1858); VAST, Le siège et la prise de Constantinople d'après des documents nouveaux in Revue historique, XIII 1-40.
MODERN RELIGIOUS STATISTICS
VAILHÉ, Constantinople in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 1307-1519; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1894), IV, 589-705; Missiones catholic (Rome, 1907), pp. 137-140; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises au XIXe siècle, I. 39-142, 149-184; BELIN, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople (Paris, 1904); HILAIRE DE BARANTON, La France catholique en Orient (Paris, 1902); Almanach à l'usage des familles catholiques de Constantinople (1901-1906).
For extensive bibliographies see: CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Montbéliard, 1904), I, 780-787; KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 1068-1144; VAILHÉ in Dict. de théol. cath., III, 1515-1519.

S. VAILHÉ

First Council of Constantinople

(SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL.)

This council was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy.

Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.

Its first measure was to confirm St. Gregory Nazianzen as Bishop of Constantinople. The Acts of the council have almost entirely disappeared, and its proceedings are known chiefly through the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. There is good reason to believe that it drew up a formal treatise (tomos) on the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, also against Apollinarianism; this important document has been lost, with the exception of the first canon of the council and its famous creed (Nicaeano-Constantinopolitanum). The latter is traditionally held to be an enlargement of the Nicene Creed, with emphasis on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It seems, however, to be of earlier origin, and was probably composed (369-73) by St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an expression of the faith of that Church (Bois), though its adoption by this council gave it special authority, both as a baptismal creed and as a theological formula. Recently Harnack (Realencyklopadie fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, 3rd ed., XI, 12-28) has maintained, on apparently inconclusive grounds, that not till after the Council of Chalcedon (451) was this creed (a Jerusalem formula with Nicene additions) attributed to the Fathers of this council. At Chalcedon, indeed, it was twice recited and appears twice in the Acts of that council; it was also read and accepted at the Sixth General Council, held at Constantinople in 680. The very ancient Latin version of its text (Mansi, Coll. Conc., III, 567) is by Dionysius Exiguus.

The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.

• The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
• The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
• The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
• The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

At the close of this council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree (30 July) declaring that the churches should be restored to those bishops who confessed the equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named. The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called "Decretum Gelasii", towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Second Council of Constantinople

(FIFTH GENERAL COUNCIL).

This council was held at Constantinople (5 May-2 June, 553), having been called by Emperor Justinian. It was attended mostly by Oriental bishops; only six Western (African) bishops were present. The president was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople. This assembly was in reality only the last phase of the long and violent conflict inaugurated by the edict of Justinian in 543 against Origenism (P.G., LXXXVI, 945-90). The emperor was persuaded that Nestorianism continued to draw its strength from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 457), and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457), also from the personal esteem in which the first two of these ecclesiastical writers were yet held by many. The events which led to this council will be narrated more fully in the articles POPE VIGILIUS and in THREE CHAPTERS; only a brief account will be given here.

From 25 January, 547, Pope Vigilius was forcibly detained in the royal city; he had originally refused to participate in the condemnation of the Three Chapters (i.e. a brief statement of anathema upon Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, upon Theodoret of Cyrus and his writings, against St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus, and upon the letter written by Ibas of Edessa to Maris, Bishop of Hardaschir in Persia). Later (by his "Judicatum", 11 April, 548) Vigilius had condemned the Three Chapters (the doctrine in question being really censurable), but he expressly maintained the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (451) wherein Theodoret and Ibas- but after the condemnation of Nestorius- had been restored to their places; in the West much discontent was called forth by this step which seemed a weakening before the civil power in purely ecclesiastical matters and an injustice to men long dead and judged by God; it was all the more objectionable as the Western mind had no accurate knowledge of the theological situation among the Greeks of that day. In consequence of this Vigilius had persuaded Justinian to return the aforesaid papal document and to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies. Both the emperor and the Greek bishops violated this promise of neutrality; the former, in particular, publishing (551) his famous edict, Homologia tes pisteos, condemning anew the Three Chapters, and refusing to withdraw the same.

For his dignified protest Vigilius thereupon suffered various personal indignities at the hands of the civil authority and nearly lost his life; he retired finally to Chalcedon, in the very church of St. Euphemia where the great council had been held, whence he informed the Christian world of the state of affairs. Soon the Oriental bishops sought reconciliation with him, induced him to return to the city, and withdrew all that had hitherto been done against the Three Chapters; the new patriarch, Eutychius, successor to Mennas, whose weakness and subserviency were the immediate cause of all this violence and confusion, presented (6 Jan., 5530 his professor of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Oriental bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. Vigilius was willing, but proposed that it should be held either in Italy or in Sicily, in order to secure the attendance of Western bishops. To this Justinian would not agree, but proposed, instead, a kind of commission made up of delegates from each of the great patriarchates; Vigilius suggested that an equal number be chosen from the East and the West; but this was not acceptable to the emperor, who thereupon opened the council by his own authority on the date and in the manner mentioned above. Vigilius refused to participate, not only on account of the overwhelming proportion of Oriental bishops, but also from fear of violence; moreover, none of his predecessors had ever taken part personally in an Oriental council. To this decision he was faithful, though he expressed his willingness to give an independent judgment on the matters at issue. Eight sessions were held, the result of which was the final condemnation of the Three Chapters by the 165 bishops present at the last session (2 June, 553), in fourteen anathematisms similar to the thirteen previously issued by Justinian.

In the meantime Vigilius had sent to the emperor (14 May) a document known as the first "Constitutum" (Mansi, IX, 61-106), signed by himself and sixteen, mostly Western, bishops, in which sixteen heretical propositions of Theodore of Mopsuestia were condemned, and, in five anathematisms, his Christological teachings repudiated; it was forbidden, however, to condemn his person, or to proceed further in condemnation of the writings or the person of Theodoret, or of the letter of Ibas. It seemed indeed, under the circumstances, no easy task to denounce fittingly the certain errors of the great Antiochene theologian and his followers and yet uphold the reputation and authority of the Council of Chalcedon, which had been content with obtaining the essentials of submission from all sympathizers with Nestorius, but for that very reason had never been forgiven by the Monophysite opponents of Nestorius and his heresy, who were now in league with the numerous enemies of Origen, and until the death (548) of Theodora had enjoyed the support of that influential empress.

The decisions of the council were executed with a violence in keeping with its conduct, though the ardently hoped-for reconciliation of the Monophysites did not follow. Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis. Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.

The original Greek Acts of the council are lost, but there is extant a very old Latin version, probably contemporary and made for the use of Vigilius, certainly quoted by his successor Pelagius I. The Baluze edition is reprinted in Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", IX, 163 sqq. In the next General Council of Constantinople (680) it was found that the original Acts of the Fifth Council had been tampered with (Hefele, op. cit., II, 855-58) in favour of Monothelitism; nor is it certain that in their present shape we have them in their original completeness (ibid., pp. 859-60). This has a bearing on the much disputed question concerning the condemnation of Origenism at this council. Hefele, moved by the antiquity and persistency of the reports of Origen's condemnation, maintains (p. 861) with Cardinal Noris, that in it Origen was condemned, but only en passant, and that his name in the eleventh anathema is not an interpolation.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Third Council of Constantinople

(SIXTH GENERAL COUNCIL.)

The Sixth General Council was summoned in 678 by Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, with a view of restoring between East and West the religious harmony that had been troubled by the Monothelistic controversies, and particularly by the violence of his predecessor Constans II, whose imperial edict, known as the "Typus" (648-49) was a practical suppression of the orthodox truth. Owing to the desire of Pope Agatho to obtain the adhesion of his Western brethren, the papal legates did not arrive at Constantinople until late in 680. The council, attended in the beginning by 100 bishops, later by 174, was opened 7 Nov., 680, in a domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace and was presided over by the (three) papal legates who brought to the council a long dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho and another of similar import from a Roman synod held in the spring of 680. They were read in the second session. Both letters, the pope's in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ, assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authoritative for the Universal Church.

The greater part of the eighteen sessions was devoted to an examination of the Scriptural and patristic passages bearing on the question of one or two wills, one or two operations, in Christ. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, soon yielded to the evidence of the orthodox teaching concerning the two wills and two operations in Christ, but Macarius of Antioch, "almost the only certain representative of Monothelism since the nine propositions of Cyrus of Alexandria" (Chapman), resisted to the end, and was finally anathematized and deposed for "not consenting to the tenor of the orthodox letters sent by Agatho the most holy pope of Rome", i.e., that in each of the two natures (human and Divine) of Christ there is a perfect operation and a perfect will, against which the Monothelites had taught that there was but one operation and one will (mia energeia theandrike) quite in consonance with the Monophysite confusion of the two natures in Christ. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelitic heretics mentioned in the aforesaid letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added: "And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas." A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor. Reference is here made to the famous letter of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople about 634, around which has arisen (especially before and during the Vatican Council) so large a controversial literature. It had been invoked three times in previous sessions of the council in question by the stubborn Monothelite Macarius of Antioch, and had been publicly read in the twelfth session together with the letter of Sergius to which it replied. On that occasion a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was also read, of which only a fragment has survived. (For the question of this pope's orthodoxy, see HONORIUS I; INFALLIBILITY; MONOTHELITES.)

There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council's condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned

because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius...Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. (Chapman)

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. "The Council", says Dom Chapman, "accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered." Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Fourth Council of Constantinople

(EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCIL.)

The Eighth General Council was opened, 5 October, 869, in the Cathedral of Saint Sophia, under the presidency of the legates of Adrian II. During the preceding decade grave irregularities had occurred at Constantinople, among them the deposition of the Patriarch Ignatius and the intrusion of Photius, whose violent measures against the Roman Church culminated in the attempted deposition (867) of Nicholas I. The accession that year of a new emperor, Basil the Macedonian, changed the situation, political and ecclesiastical. Photius was interned in a monastery; Ignatius was recalled, and friendly relations were resumed with the Apostolic See. Both Ignatius and Basil sent representatives to Rome asking for a general council. After holding a Roman synod (June, 869) in which Photius was again condemned, the pope sent to Constantinople three legates to preside in his name over the council. Besides the Patriarch of Constantinople there were present the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was small enough in the beginning; indeed there were never more than 102 bishops present.

The legates were asked to exhibit their commission, which they did; then they presented to the members of the council the famous formula (libellus) of Pope Hormisdas (514-23), binding its signatories "to follow in everything the Apostolic See of Rome and teach all its laws . . . in which communion is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion". The Fathers of the council were required to sign this document, which had originally been drawn up to close the Acacian schism. The earlier sessions were occupied with the reading of important documents, the reconciliation of Ignatain bishops who had fallen away to Photius, the exclusion of some Photian prelates, and the refutation of the false statements of two former envoys of Photius to Rome. In the fifth session Photius himself unwillingly appeared, but when questioned observed a deep silence or answered only in a few brief words, pretending blasphemously to imitate the attitude and speech of Christ before Caiphas and Pilate. Through his representatives he was given another hearing in the next session; they appealed to the canons as above the pope. In the seventh session he appeared again, this time with his consecrator George Asbestas. They appealed, as before, to the ancient canons, refused to recognize the presence or authority of the Roman legates, and rejected the authority of the Roman Church, though they offered to render an account to the emperor. As Photius would not renounce his usurped claim and recognize the rightful patriarch Ignatius, the former Roman excommunications of him were renewed by the council, and he was banished to a monastery on the Bosporus, whence he did not cease to denounce the council as a triumph of lying and impiety, and by a very active correspondence kept up the courage of his followers, until in 877 the death of Ignatius opened the way for his return to power. Iconoclasm, in its last remnants, and the interference of the civil authority in ecclesiastical affairs were denounced by the council. The tenth and last session was held in the presence of the emperor, his son Constantine, the Bulgarian king, Michael, and the ambassadors of Emperor Louis II.

The twenty-seven canons of this council deal partly with the situation created by Photius and partly with general points of discipline or abuses. The decrees of Nicholas I and Adrian II against Photius and in favour of Ignatius were read and confirmed, the Photian clerics deposed, and those ordained by Photius reduced to lay communion. The council issued an Encyclical to all the faithful, and wrote to the pope requesting his confirmation of its Acts. The papal legates signed its decrees, but with reservation of the papal action. Here, for the first time, Rome recognized the ancient claim of Constantinople to the second place among the five great patriarchates. Greek pride, however, was offended by the compulsory signature of the aforesaid Roman formulary of reconciliation, and in a subsequent conference of Greek ecclesiastical and civil authorities the newly-converted Bulgarians were declared subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and not to Rome. Though restored by the Apostolic See, Ignatius proved ungrateful, and in this important matter sided with the other Eastern patriarchs in consummating, for political reasons, a notable injustice; the territory henceforth known as Bulgaria was in reality part of the ancient Illyria that had always belonged to the Roman patriarchate until the Iconoclast Leo III (718-41) violently withdrew it and made it subject to Constantinople. Ignatius very soon consecrated an archbishop for the Bulgarians and sent thither many Greek missionaries, whereupon the Latin bishops and priests were obliged to retire. On their way home the papal legates were plundered and imprisoned; they had, however, given to the care of Anastasius, Librarian of the Roman Church (present as a member of the Frankish embassy) most of the submission-signatures of the Greek bishops. We owe to him the Latin version of these documents and a copy of the Greek Acts of the council which he also translated and to which is due most of our documentary knowledge of the proceedings. It was in vain that Adrian II and his successor threatened Ignatius with severe penalties if he did not withdraw from Bulgaria his Greek bishops and priests. The Roman Church never regained the vast regions she then lost. (See PHOTIUS; IGNATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE; NICHOLAS I.)

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Council of Constantinople (A.D. 382)

In the summer of 382 a council of the oriental bishops, convoked by Theodosius, met in the imperial city. We still have its important profession of faith, often wrongly attributed to the Second General Council (i.e. at Constantinople in the preceding year), exhibiting the doctrinal agreement of all the Christian churches; also two canons (5 and 6) wrongly put among the canons of the Second General Council. In the summer of the next year (383) Theodosius convoked another council, with the hope of uniting all factions and parties among the Christians on the basis of a general acceptance of the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He met with a qualified success (Socrates, V, 10); among the most stubborn of those who resisted was Eunomius (see EUNOMIANISM).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Council in Trullo

This particular council of Constantinople, held in 692 under Justinian II, is generally known as the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth General Council had met (see above). Both the Fifth and the Sixth General Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it also took the name of Quinisext (Concilium Quinisextum, Eunodos penthekte), i.e. Fifth-Sixth. It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and "every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned" (Fortescue). Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed, the heresy of Honorius is again condemned (can. i), and marriage with a heretic is invalid because Rome says it is merely unlawful; Rome had recognized fifty of the Apostolic Canons, therefore the other thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and as inspired teaching (see CANONS, APOSTOLIC).

In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Council of Constantinople (A.D. 754)

In 754 the Iconoclast Emperor Constantine V called in the imperial city a council of 338 bishops. Through cowardice and servility they approved the heretical attitude of the emperor and his father Leo III, also the arguments of the Iconoclast party and their measures against the defenders of the sacred images. They anathematized St. Germanus of Constantinople and St. John Damascene, and denounced the orthodox as idolaters, etc.; at the same time they resented the spoliation of the churches under pretext of destroying images (see ICONOCLASM).

Photian Synods of Constantinople (861, 867, 879)

For the three Photian synods of 861 (deposition of Ignatius), 867 (attempted deposition of Nicholas I), and 879 (recognition of Photius as lawful patriarch), recognized by the Greeks as Eighth General Council in opposition to the council of 869-70, which they continue to abominate, see PHOTIUS.

Councils of Constantinople (1639, 1672)

In 1639 and 1672 councils were held by the Orthodox Greeks at Constantinople condemnatory of the Calvinistic confession of Cyril Lucaris and his followers. [See Semnoz, "Les dernières années du patr. Cyrille Lucar" in "Echos d'Orient" (1903), VI, 97-117, and Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church" (London, 1907), 267].

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

The Rite of Constantinople

(Also BYZANTINE RITE.)

The Liturgies, Divine Office, forms for the administration of sacraments and for various blessings, sacramentals, and exorcisms, of the Church of Constantinople, which is now, after the Roman Rite, by far the most widely spread in the world. With one insignificant exception -- the Liturgy of St. James is used once a year at Jerusalem and Zakynthos (Zacynthus) -- it is followed exclusively by all Orthodox Churches, by the Melkites (Melchites) in Syria and Egypt, the Uniats in the Balkans and the Italo-Greeks in Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, and Corsica. So that more than a hundred millions of Christians perform their devotions according to the Rite of Constantinople.

I. HISTORY

This is not one of the original parent-rites. It is derived from that of Antioch. Even apart from the external evidence a comparison of the two liturgies will show that Constantinople follows Antioch in the disposition of the parts. There are two original Eastern types of liturgy: that of Alexandria, in which the great Intercession comes before the Consecration, and that of Antioch, in which it follows after the Epiklesis. The Byzantine use in both its Liturgies (of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom) follows exactly the order of Antioch. A number of other parallels make the fact of this derivation clear from internal evidence, as it is from external witness. The tradition of the Church of Constantinople ascribes the oldest of its two Liturgies to St. Basil the Great (d. 379), Metropolitan of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. This tradition is confirmed by contemporary evidence. It is certain that St. Basil made a reformation of the Liturgy of his Church, and that the Byzantine service called after him represents his reformed Liturgy in its chief parts, although it has undergone further modification since his time. St. Basil himself speaks on several occasions of the changes he made in the services of Cæsarea. He writes to the clergy of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus to complain of opposition against himself on account of the new way of singing psalms introduced by his authority (Ep. Basilii, cvii, Patr. Gr., XXXII, 763). St. Gregory of Nazianzos (Nazianzen, d. 390) says that Basil had reformed the order of prayers (euchon diataxis -- Orat. xx, P. G., XXXV, 761). Gregory of Nyssa (died c. 395) compares his brother Basil with Samuel because he "carefully arranged the form of the Service" (Hierourgia, In laudem fr. Bas., P. G., XLVI, 808). Prokios (Proclus) of Constantinople (d. 446) writes: "When the great Basil . . . saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy -- not as if he thought it too long -- he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinæ Missæ, P. G., XLV, 849).

The first question that presents itself is: What rite was it that Basil modified and shortened? Certainly it was that used at Cæsarea before his time. And this was a local form of the great Antiochene use, doubtless with many local variations and additions. That the original rite that stands at the head of this line of development is that of Antioch is proved from the disposition of the present Liturgy of St. Basil, to which we have already referred; from the fact that, before the rise of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Antioch was the head of the Churches of Asia Minor as well as of Syria (and invariably in the East the patriarchal see gives the norm in liturgical matters, followed and then gradually modified by its suffragan Churches); and lastly by the absence of any other source. At the head of all Eastern rites stand the uses of Antioch and Alexandria. Lesser and later Churches do not invent an entirely new service for themselves, but form their practice on the model of one of these two. Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor in liturgical matters derive from Antioch, just as Egypt, Abyssinia, and Nubia do from Alexandria. The two Antiochene liturgies now extant are;

These are the starting-points of the development we can follow. But it is not to be supposed that St. Basil had before him either of these services, as they now stand, when he made the changes in question. In the first place, his source is rather the Liturgy of St. James than that of the Apostolic Constitutions. There are parallels to both in the Basilian Rite; but the likeness is much greater to that of St. James. From the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer (Vere dignum et justum est, our Preface) to the dismissal, Basil's order is almost exactly that of James. But the now extant Liturgy of St. James (in Brightman, "Liturgies Eastern and Western", 31-68) has itself been considerably modified in later years. Its earlier part especially (the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Offertory) is certainly later than the time of St. Basil. In any case, then, we must go back to the original Antiochene Rite as the source. But neither was this the immediate origin of the reform. It must be remembered that all living rites are subject to gradual modification through use. The outline and frame remain; into this frame new prayers are fitted. As a general rule liturgies keep the disposition of their parts, but tend to change the text of the prayers. St. Basil took as the basis of his reform the use of Cæsarea in the fourth century. There is reason to believe that that use, while retaining the essential order of the original Antiochene service, had already considerably modified various parts, especially the actual prayers. We have seen, for instance, that Basil shortened the Liturgy. But the service that bears his name is not at all shorter than the present one of St. James. We may, then, suppose that by his time the Liturgy of Cæsarea had been considerably lengthened by additional prayers (this is the common development of Liturgies). When we say, then, that the rite of Constantinople that bears his name is the Liturgy of St. James as modified by St. Basil, it must be understood that Basil is rather the chief turning-point in its development than the only author of the change. It had already passed through a period of development before his time, and it has developed further since. Nevertheless, St. Basil and his reform of the rite of his own city are the starting-point of the special use of Constantinople.

A comparison of the present Liturgy of St. Basil with earlier allusions shows that in its chief parts it is really the service composed by him. Peter the Deacon, who was sent by the Scythian monks to Pope Hormisdas to defend a famous formula they had drawn up ("One of the Trinity was crucified") about the year 512, writes: "The blessed Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea, says in the prayer of the holy altar which is used by nearly the whole East: Give, oh Lord, strength and protection; make the bad good, we pray, keep the good in their virtue; for Thou canst do all things, and no one can withstand Thee; Thou dost save whom Thou wilt and no one can hinder Thy will" (Petri diac. Ep. ad Fulgent, vii, 25, in P. L., LXV, 449). This is a compilation of three texts in the Basilian Liturgy: Keep the good in their virtue; make the bad good by thy mercy (Brightman, op. cit., pp. 333-334); the words: Give, O Lord, strength and protection come several times at the beginning of prayers; and the last words are an acclamation made by the choir or people at the end of several (Renaudot, I, p. xxxvii). The Life of St. Basil ascribed to Amphilochios (P.G., XXIX, 301, 302) quotes as composed by him the beginning of the Introduction-prayer and that of the Elevation exactly as they are in the existing Liturgy (Brightman, 319, 341). The Second Council of Nicæa (787) says: "As all priests of the holy Liturgy know, Basil says in the prayer of the Divine Anaphora: We approach with confidence to the holy altar . . . ". The prayer is the one that follows the Anamnesis in St. Basil's Liturgy (Brightman, p. 329. Cf. Hardouin, IV, p. 371).

From these and similar indications we conclude that the Liturgy of St. Basil in its oldest extant form is substantially authentic, namely, from the beginning of the Anaphora to the Communion. The Mass of the Catechumens and the Offertory prayers have developed since his death. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in describing the saint's famous encounter with Valens at Cæsarea, in 372, describes the Offertory as a simpler rite, accompanied with psalms sung by the people but without an audible Offertory prayer (Greg. Naz., Or., xliii, 52, P. G., XXXVI, 561). This oldest form of the Basilian Liturgy is contained in a manuscript of the Barberini Library of about the year 800 (MS., III, 55, reprinted in Brightman, 309-344). The Liturgy of St. Basil now used in the Orthodox and Melkite (or Melchite) Churches (Euchologion, Venice, 1898, pp. 75-97; Brightman, 400-411) is printed after that of St. Chrysostom and differs from it only in the prayers said by the priest, chiefly in the Anaphora; it has received further unimportant modifications. It is probable that even before the time of St. John Chrysostom the Liturgy of Basil was used at Constantinople. We have seen that Peter the Deacon mentions that it was "used by nearly the whole East". It would seem that the importance of the See of Cæsarea (even beyond its own exarchy), the fame of St. Basil, and the practical convenience of this short Liturgy led to its adoption by many Churches in Asia and Syria. The "East" in Peter the Deacon's remark would probably mean the Roman Prefecture of the East (Præfectura Orientis) that included Thrace. Moreover, when St. Gregory of Nazianzos came to Constantinople to administer that diocese (381) he found in use there a Liturgy that was practically the same as the one he had known at home in Cappadocia. His Sixth Oration (P. G., XXXV, 721 sq.) was held in Cappadocia, his Thirty-eighth (P. G., XXXVI, 311) at Constantinople. In both he refers to and quotes the Eucharistic prayer that his hearers know. A comparison of the two texts shows that the prayer is the same. This proves that, at any rate in its most important element, the liturgy used at the capital was that of Cappadocia -- the one that St. Basil used as a basis of his reform. It would therefore be most natural that the reform too should in time be adopted at Constantinople. But it would seem that before Chrysostom this Basilian Rite (according to the universal rule) had received further development and additions at Constantinople. It has been suggested that the oldest form of the Nestorian Liturgy is the original Byzantine Rite, the one that St. Chrysostom found in use when he became patriarch (Probst, "Lit. des IV. Jahrhts.", 413).

The next epoch in the history of the Byzantine Rite is the reform of St. John Chrysostom (d. 407). He not only further modified the Rite of Basil, but left both his own reformed Liturgy and the unreformed Basilian one itself, as the exclusive uses of Constantinople. St. John became Patriarch of Constantinople in 397; he reigned there till 403, was then banished, but came back in the same year; was banished again in 404, and died in exile in 407. The tradition of his Church says that during the time of his patriarchate he composed from the Basilian Liturgy a shorter form that is the one still in common use throughout the Orthodox Church. The same text of Proklos (Proclus) quoted above continues: "Not long afterwards our father, John Chrysostom, zealous for the salvation of his flock as a shepherd should be, considering the carelessness of human nature, thoroughly rooted up every diabolical objection. He therefore left out a great part and shortened all the forms lest anyone . . . stay away from this Apostolic and Divine Institution", etc. He would, then, have treated St. Basil's rite exactly as Basil treated the older rite of Cæsarea. There is no reason to doubt this tradition in the main issue. A comparison of the Liturgy of Chrysostom with that of Basil will show that it follows the same order and is shortened considerably in the text of the prayers; a further comparison of its text with the numerous allusions to the rite of the Holy Eucharist in Chrysostom's homilies will show that the oldest form we have of the Liturgy agrees substantially with the one he describes (Brightman, 530-534). But it is also certain that the modern Liturgy of St. Chrysostom has received considerable modifications and additions since his time. In order to reconstruct the rite used by him we must take away from the present Liturgy all the Preparation of the Offerings (Proskomide), the ritual of the Little and Great Entrances, and the Creed. The service began with the bishop's greeting, "Peace to all", and the answer, "And with thy spirit." The lessons followed from the Prophets and Apostles, and the deacon read the Gospel. After the Gospel the bishop or a priest preached a homily, and the prayer over the catechumens was said. Originally it had been followed by a prayer over penitents, but Nektarios (381-397) had abolished the discipline of public penance, so in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy this prayer is left out. Then came a prayer for the faithful (baptized) and the dismissal of the catechumens. St. Chrysostom mentions a new ritual for the Offertory: the choir accompanied the bishop and formed a solemn procession to bring the bread and wine from the prothesis to the altar (Hom. xxxvi, in I Cor., vi, P. G., LXI, 313). Nevertheless the present ceremonies and the Cherubic Chant that accompany the Great Entrance are a later development (Brightman, op. cit., 530). The Kiss of Peace apparently preceded the Offertory in Chrysostom's time (Brightman, op. cit., 522, Probst, op. cit., 208). The Eucharistic prayer began, as everywhere, with the dialogue: "Lift up your hearts" etc. This prayer, which is clearly an abbreviated form of that in the Basilian Rite, is certainly authentically of St. Chrysostom. It is apparently chiefly in reference to it that Proklos says that he has shortened the older rite. The Sanctus was sung by the people as now. The ceremonies performed by the deacon at the words of Institution are a later addition. Probst thinks that the original Epiklesis of St. Chrysostom ended at the words "Send thy Holy Spirit down on us and on these gifts spread before us" (Brightman, op. cit., 386), and that the continuation (especially the disconnected interruption: God be merciful to me a sinner, now inserted into the Epiklesis; Maltzew, "Die Liturgien" etc., Berlin, 1894, p. 88) are a later addition (op. cit., 414). The Intercession followed at once, beginning with a memory of the saints. The prayer for the dead came before that for the living (ibid., 216-415). The Eucharistic prayer ended with a doxology to which the people answered, Amen; and then the bishop greeted them with the text, "The mercy of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be with all of you" (Tit., ii, 13), to which they answered: "And with thy spirit", as usual. The Lord's Prayer followed, introduced by a short litany spoken by the deacon and followed by the well-known doxology: "For thine is the kingdom" etc. This ending was added to the Our Father in the Codex of the New Testament used by St. Chrysostom (cf. Hom. xix in P. G., LVII, 282). Another greeting (Peace to all) with its answer introduced the manual acts, first an Elevation with the words "Holy things for the holy" etc., the Breaking of Bread and the Communion under both kinds. In Chrysostom's time it seems that people received either kind separately, drinking from the chalice. A short prayer of thanksgiving ended the Liturgy. That is the rite as we see it in the saint's homilies (cf. Probst., op. cit., 156-202, 202-226). It is true that most of these homilies were preached at Antioch (387-397) before he went to Constantinople. It would seem, then, that the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom was in great part that of his time at Antioch, and that he introduced it at the capital when he became patriarch. We have seen from Peter the Deacon that St. Basil's Rite was used by "nearly the whole East". There is, then, no difficulty in supposing that it had penetrated to Antioch and was already abridged there into the "Liturgy of Chrysostom" before that saint brought this abridged form to Constantinople.

It was this Chrysostom Liturgy that gradually became the common Eucharistic service of Constantinople, and that spread throughout the Orthodox world, as the city that had adopted it became more and more the acknowledged head of Eastern Christendom. It did not completely displace the older rite of St. Basil, but reduced its use to a very few days in the year on which it is still said (see below, under II). Meanwhile the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom itself underwent further modification. The oldest form of it now extant is in the same manuscript of the Barberini Library that contains St. Basil's Liturgy. In this the elaborate rite of the Proskomide has not yet been added, but it has already received additions since the time of the saint whose name it bears. The Trisagion (Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us) at the Little Entrance is said to have been revealed to Proklos of Constantinople (434-47, St. John Dam., De Fide Orth., III, 10); this probably gives the date of its insertion into the Liturgy. The Cherubikon that accompanies the Great Entrance was apparently added by Justin II (565-78, Brightman, op. cit., 532), and the Creed that follows, just before the beginning of the Anaphora, is also ascribed to him (Joannis Biclarensis Chronicon, P. L., LXXII, 863). Since the Barberini Euchologion (ninth cent.) the Preparation of the Offerings (proskomide) at the credence-table (called prothesis) gradually developed into the elaborate rite that now accompanies it. Brightman (op. cit., 539-552) gives a series of documents from which the evolution of this rite may be traced from the ninth to the sixteenth century.

These are the two Liturgies of Constantinople, the older one of St. Basil, now said on only a few days, and the later shortened one of St. Chrysostom that is in common use. There remains the third, the Liturgy of the Presanctified (ton proegiasmenon). This service, that in the Latin Church now occurs only on Good Friday, was at one time used on the aliturgical days of Lent everywhere (see ALITURGICAL DAYS and Duchesne, Origines, 222, 238). This is still the practice of the Eastern Churches. The Paschal Chronicle (see CHRONICON PASCHALE) of the year 645 (P. G., XCII) mentions the Presanctified Liturgy, and the fifty-second canon of the Second Trullan Council (692) orders: "On all days of the fast of forty days, except Saturdays and Sundays and the day of the Holy Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified shall be celebrated." The essence of this Liturgy is simply that the Blessed Sacrament that has been consecrated on the preceding Sunday, and is reserved in the tabernacle (artophorion) under both kinds, is taken out and distributed as Communion. It is now always celebrated at the end of Vespers (hesperinos), which form its first part. The lessons are read as usual, and the litanies sung; the catechumens are dismissed, and then, the whole Anaphora being naturally omitted, Communion is given; the blessing and dismissal follow. A great part of the rite is simply taken from the corresponding parts of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy. The present form, then, is a comparatively late one that supposes the normal Liturgies of Constantinople. It has been attributed to various persons -- St. James, St. Peter, St. Basil, St. Germanos I of Constantinople (715-30), and so on (Brightman, op. cit., p. xciii). But in the service books it is now officially ascribed to St. Gregory Dialogos (Pope Gregory I). It is impossible to say how this certainly mistaken ascription began. The Greek legend is that, when he was apocrisiarius at Constantinople (578), seeing that the Greeks had no fixed rite for this Communion-service, he composed this one for them.

The origin of the Divine Office and of the rites for sacraments and sacramentals in the Byzantine Church is more difficult to trace. Here too we have now the result of a long and gradual development; and the starting-point of that development is certainly the use of Antioch. But there are no names that stand out as clearly as do those of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom in the history of the Liturgy. We may perhaps find the trace of a similar action on their part in the case of the Office. The new way of singing psalms introduced by St. Basil (Ep. cvii, see above) would in the first place affect the canonical Hours. It was the manner of singing psalms antiphonally, that is alternately by two choirs, to which we are accustomed, that had already been introduced at Antioch in the time of the Patriarch Leontios (Leontius, 344-57; Theodoret, H. E., II, xxiv). We find one or two other allusions to reforms in various rites among the works of St. Chrysostom; thus he desires people to accompany funerals by singing psalms (Hom. iv, in Ep. ad Hebr., P. G., LXIII, 43) etc.

With regard to the Divine Office especially, it has the same general principles in East and West from a very early age (see BREVIARY). Essentially it consists in psalm-singing. Its first and most important part is the Night-watch (pannychis, our Nocturns); at dawn the orthros (Lauds) was sung; during the day the people met again at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, and at sunset for the hesperinos (Vespers). Besides the psalms these Offices contained lessons from the Bible and collects. A peculiarity of the Antiochene use was the "Gloria in excelsis" sung at the Orthros (Ps.-Athan., De Virg., xx, P. G., XXVIII, 276); the evening hymn, Phos ilaron, still sung in the Byzantine Rite at the Hesperinos and attributed to Athenogenes (in the second cent.), is quoted by St. Basil (De Spir. Sancto, lxxiii, P. G., XXXII, 205). Egeria of Aquitaine, the pilgrim to Jerusalem, gives a vivid description of the Office as sung there according to Antioch in the fourth century ["S. Silviæ (sic) peregrin.", ed. Gamurrini, Rome, 1887]. To this series of Hours two were added in the fourth century. John Cassian (Instit., III, iv) describes the addition of Prime by the monks of Palestine, and St. Basil refers (loc. cit.) to Complin (apodeipnon) as the monks' evening prayer. Prime and Complin, then, were originally private prayers said by monks in addition to the official Hours. The Antiochene manner of keeping this Office was famous all over the East. Flavian of Antioch in 387 softened the heart of Theodosius (after the outrage to the statues) by making his clerks sing to him "the suppliant chants of Antioch" (Sozom., H. E., VII, xxiii). And St. John Chrysostom, as soon as he comes to Constantinople, introduces the methods of Antioch in keeping the canonical Hours (16, VIII, 8). Eventually the eastern Office admits short services (mesoorai) between the day Hours, and between Vespers and Complin. Into this frame a number of famous poets have fitted a long succession of canons (unmetrical hymns); of these poets St. Romanos the singer (sixth cent.), St. Cosmas the singer (eighth cent.), St. John Damascene (c. 780), St. Theodore of Studion (d. 826), etc., are the most famous (see BYZANTINE LITERATURE, sub-title IV. Ecclesiastical etc.). St. Sabas (d. 532) and St. John Damascene eventually arranged the Office for the whole year, though, like the Liturgy, it has undergone further development since, till it acquired its present form (see below).

II. THE BYZANTINE RITE AT THE PRESENT TIME

The Rite of Constantinople now used throughout the Orthodox Church does not maintain any principle of uniformity in language. In various countries the same prayers and forms are translated (with unimportant variations) into what is supposed to be more or less the vulgar tongue. As a matter of fact, however, it is only in Rumania that the liturgical language is the same as that of the people. Greek (from which all the others are translated) is used at Constantinople, in Macedonia (by the Patriarchists), Greece, by Greek monks in Palestine and Syria, by nearly all Orthodox in Egypt; Arabic in parts of Syria, Palestine, and by a few churches in Egypt; Old Slavonic throughout Russia, in Bulgaria, and by all Exarchists, in Czernagora, Servia, and by the Orthodox in Austria and Hungary; and Rumanian by the Church of that country. These four are the principal languages. Later Russian missions use Esthonian, Lettish, and German in the Baltic provinces, Finnish and Tatar in Finland and Siberia, Chinese, and Japanese. (Brightman, op. cit., LXXXI-LXXXII). Although the Liturgy has been translated into English (see Hapgood, op. cit. in bibliography), a translation is never used in any church of the Greek Rite. The Uniats use Greek at Constantinople, in Italy, and partially in Syria and Egypt, Arabic chiefly in these countries, Old Slavonic in Slav lands, and Rumanian in Rumania. It is curious to note that in spite of this great diversity of languages the ordinary Orthodox layman no more understands his Liturgy than if it were in Greek. Old Slavonic and the semi-classical Arabic in which it is sung are dead languages.

The Calendar

It is well known that the Orthodox still use the Julian Calendar (Old Style). By this time (1908) they are thirteen days behind us. Their liturgical year begins on 1 September, "the beginning of the Indict, that is of the new year". On 15 November begins the first of their four great fasts, the "fast of Christ's birth" that lasts till Christmas (25 December). The fast of Easter begins on the Monday after the sixth Sunday before Easter, and they abstain from flesh-meat after the seventh Sunday before the feast (our Sexagesima). The fast of the Apostles lasts from the day after the first Sunday after Pentecost (their All Saints' Day) till 28 June, the fast of the Mother of God from 1 August to 14 August. Throughout this year fall a great number of feasts. The great cycles are the same as ours -- Christmas, followed by a Memory of the Mother of God on 26 December, then St. Stephen on 27 December, etc. Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday follow as with us. Many of the other feasts are the same as ours, though often with different names. They divide them into three categories, feasts of our Lord (heortai despotikai), of the Mother of God (theometrikai), and of the saints (ton hagion). They count the "Holy meeting" (with St. Simeon, 2 February), the Annunciation (25 March), the Awakening of Lazarus (Saturday before Palm Sunday), etc., as feasts of Our Lord. The chief feasts of Our Lady are her birthday (8 September), Presentation in the Temple (21 November), Conception (9 December), Falling-asleep (koimesis, 15 August), and the Keeping of her Robe at the Blachernæ (at Constantinople, 2 July). Feasts are further divided according to their solemnity into three classes: great, middle, and less days. Easter of course stands alone as greatest of all. It is "The Feast" (he heorte, al-id); there are twelve other very great days and twelve great ones. Certain chief saints (the Apostles, the three holy hierarchs -- Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom -- 30 January, the holy and equal-to-the-Apostles Sovereigns, Constantine and Helen, etc.) have middle feasts; all the others are lesser ones. The Sundays are named after the subject of their Gospel; the first Sunday of Lent is the feast of Orthodoxy (after Iconoclasm), the Saturdays before Meatless Sunday (our Sexagesima) and Whitsunday are All Souls' days. Our Trinity Sunday is their All Saints. Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year are days of abstinence (Fortescue, "Orth. Eastern Church", 398-401).

Service-books

The Byzantine Rite has no such compendiums as our Missal and Breviary; it is contained in a number of loosely arranged books. They are: the Typikon), a perpetual calendar containing full directions for all feasts and all possible coincidences. The (Euchologion) contains the priest's part of the Hesperinos, Orthros, the three Liturgies, and other sacraments and sacramentals. The Triodion contains the variable parts of the Liturgy and Divine Office (except the psalms, Epistles, and Gospels) for the movable days from the tenth Sunday before Easter to Holy Saturday. Tbe Pentekostarion continues the Triodion from Easter Day to the first Sunday after Pentecost (All Saints' Sunday). The Oktoechos gives the Offices of the Sundays for the rest of the year (arranged according to the eight modes to which they are sung -- okto echoi) and the Parakletike is for the weekdays. The twelve Menaias, one for each month, contain the Proper of Saints; the Menologion is a shortened version of the Menaia, and the Horologion contains the choir's part of the day Hours. The Psalter (psalterion), Gospel (enaggelion), and Apostle (apostolos -- Epistles and Acts) contain the parts of the Bible read (Fortescue, "Orth. E. Ch.", 401-402; Nilles, "Kal. Man.", XLIV-LVI; Kattenbusch, "Confessionskunde", I, 478-486).

The altar, vestments and sacred vessels

A church of the Byzantine Rite should have only one altar. In a few very large ones there are side-chapels with altars, and the Uniats sometimes copy the Latin multitude of altars in one church; this in an abuse that is not consistent with their rite. The altar (he hagia trapeza) stands in the middle of the sanctuary (ierateion); it is covered to the ground with a linen cloth over which is laid a silk or velvet covering. The Euchologion, a folded antimension, and perhaps one or two other instruments used in the Liturgy are laid on it; nothing else. [See ALTAR (IN THE GREEK CHURCH).] Behind the altar, round the apse, are seats for priests with the bishop's throne in the middle (in every church). On the north side of the altar stands a large credence-table (prothesis); the first part of the Liturgy is said here. On the south side is the diakonikon, a sort of sacristy where vessels and vestments are kept; but it is in no way walled off from the rest of the sanctuary. The sanctuary is divided from the rest of the church by the ikonostasis (eikonostasis, picture-screen), a great screen stretching across the whole width and reaching high up to the roof (see sub-title The Iconostasis s.v. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR). On the outside it is covered with a great number of pictures of Christ and the saints, arranged in a more or less determined order (Christ always to the right of the royal doors and the Bl. Virgin on the left), before which rows of lamps are hung. The ikonostasis has three doors, the "royal door" in the middle, the deacon's door to the south (right hand as one enters the church), and another door to the north. Between the royal door and the deacon's door the bishop has another throne facing the people. Immediately outside the ikonostasis is the choir. A great part of the services take place here. In the body of the church the people stand (there are no seats as a rule); then comes the narthex, a passage across the church at the west end, from which one enters by doors into the nave. Most of the funeral rites and other services take place in the narthex. Churches are roofed as a rule by a succession of low cupolas, often five (if the church is cross-shaped). In Russia there is generally a belfry. The vestments were once the same as the Latin ones, though now they look very different. It is a curious case of parallel evolution. The bishop wears over his cassock the sticharion our alb; it is often of silk and coloured; then the epitrachelion, a stole of which the two ends are sewn together and hang straight down in front, with a loop through which the head is passed. The sticharion and epitrachelion are held together by the zone (girdle), a narrow belt of stuff with clasps. Over the wrists he wears the epimanikia, cuffs or gloves with the part for the hand cut off. From the girdle the epigonation, a diamond-shaped piece of stuff, stiffened with cardboard, hangs down to the right knee. Lastly, he wears over all the sakkos, a vestment like our dalmatic. Over the sakkos comes the omophorion. This is a great pallium of silk embroidered with crosses. There is also a smaller omophorion for some rites. He has a pectoral cross, an enkolpion (a medal containing a relic), a mitre formed of metal and shaped like an imperial crown, and a dikanikion, or crosier, shorter than ours and ending in two serpents between which is a cross. To give his blessing in the Liturgy he uses the trikerion in his right and the dikerion in his left hand. These are a triple and double candlestick with candles. The priest wears the sticharion, epitrachelion, zone, and epimanikia. If he is a dignitary he wears the epigonation and (in Russia) the mitre also. Instead of a sakkos he has a phainolion, our chasuble, but reaching to the feet behind and at the sides, and cut away in front (see CHASUBLE and illustrations). The deacon wears the sticharion and epimanikia, but no girdle. His stole is called an orarion; it is pinned to the left shoulder and hangs straight down, except that he winds it around his body and over the right shoulder at the Communion. It is embroidered with the word "HAGIOS" three times. A very common abuse (among Melkites too) is for other servers to wear the orarion. This is expressly forbidden by the Council of Laodicea (c. 360, can. xxii). The Byzantine Rite has no sequence of liturgical colours. They generally use black for funerals, otherwise any colours for any day. The vessels used for the holy Liturgy are the chalice and paten (diskos), which latter is much larger than ours and has a foot to stand it (it is never put on the chalice), the asteriskos (a cross of bent metal that stands over the paten to prevent the veil from touching the holy bread), the spoon (labis) for giving Communion, the spear (logche) to cut up the bread, and the fan (hripidion) which the deacon waves over the Blessed Sacrament -- this is a flat piece of metal shaped like an angel's head with six wings and a handle. The antimension) is a kind of corporal containing relics that is spread out at the beginning of the Liturgy. It is really a portable altar. The Holy Bread (always leavened of course) is made as a flat loaf marked in squares to be cut up during the Proskomide with the letters IC. XC. NI. KA. (Iesous Christos nika). In the diakonikon a vessel is kept with hot water for the Liturgy (Fortescue, op. cit., 403-409; "Echos d'Orient", V, 129-139; R. Storff, "Die griech. Liturg.", 13-14).

Church music

The singing in the Byzantine Rite is always unaccompanied. No musical instrument of any kind may be used in their churches. They have a plain chant of eight modes that correspond to ours, except that they are numbered differently; the four authentic modes (Doric, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian -- our 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th) come first, then the Plagal modes (our 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th). But their scales are different. Whereas our plainsong is strictly diatonic, theirs is enharmonic with variable intervals. They always sing in unison and frequently change the mode in the middle of a chant. One singer (generally a boy) sings the dominant (to ison) of the mode to the sound of A continuously, while the rest execute their elaborate pneums (see PLAIN CHANT). The result is generally -- to our ears -- unmelodious and strange, though in some cases a carefully trained choir produces a fine effect. One of the best is that of St. Anne's (Melkite) College at Jerusalem, trained by the French Pères Blancs. One of these, Père Rebours, has written an exhaustive and practical treatise of their chant ("Traité de psaltique" etc.; see bibliography). In Russia and lately, to some extent, in the metropolitan church of Athens they sing figured music in parts of a very stately and beautiful kind. It is probably the most beautiful and suitable church music in the world.

The Holy Liturgy

The present use of the Byzantine Rite confines the older Liturgy of St. Basil to the Sundays in Lent (except Palm Sunday), Maundy Thursday, and Holy Saturday, also the eves of Christmas and the Epiphany, and St. Basil's feast (1 January). On all other days on which the Liturgy is celebrated they use that of St. Chrysostom. But on the weekdays in Lent (except Saturdays) they may not consecrate, so they use for them the Liturgy of the Presanctified. An Orthodox priest does not celebrate every day, but as a rule only on Sundays and feast-days. the Uniats, however, in this, as in many other ways, imitate the Latin custom. They also have a curious principle that the altar as well as the celebrant must be fasting, that is to say that it must not have been used already on the same day. So there is only one Liturgy a day in an Orthodox Church. Where many priests are present they concelebrate, all saying the Anaphora together over the same offerings. This happens nearly always when a bishop celebrates; he is surrounded by his priests, who celebrate with him. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, as being the one commonly used, is always printed first in the Euchologia. It is the framework into which the others are fitted and the greater part of the Liturgy is always said according to this form. After it are printed the prayers of St. Basil (always much longer) which are substituted for some of the usual ones when his rite is used, and then the variants of the Liturgy of the Presanctified. The Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, then, differing only in a certain number of the prayers, may be described together.

The first rubric directs that the celebrant must be reconciled to all men, keep his heart from evil thoughts, and be fasting since midnight. At the appointed hour (usually immediately after None) the celebrant and deacon (who communicates and must therefore also be fasting) say the preparatory prayers before the ikonostasis (Brightman, op. cit., 353-354), kiss the holy ikons, and go into the diakonikon. Here they vest, the celebrant blessing each vestment as it is put on, say certain prayers, and wash their hands, saying verses 6-12 of Ps. xxv ("Lavabo inter innocentes" etc., op. cit., 354-356). Then the first part of the Liturgy, the Preparation of the Offering (proskomide) begins at the credence table (prothesis). The loaves of bread (generally five) are marked in divisions as described above under the caption Altar, etc. The celebrant cuts away with the holy lance the parts marked IC. XC. NI. KA., and says: "The Lamb of God is sacrificed." These parts are then called the Lamb. The deacon pours wine and warm water into the chalice. Other parts of the bread are cut away in honour of the All-holy Theotokos, nine for various saints, and others for the bishop, Orthodox clergy, and various people for whom he wishes to pray. This rite is accompanied by many prayers, the particles (prosphorai) are arranged on the diskos (paten) by the Lamb (that of the Theotokos on the right, because of the verse "The Queen stands at thy right hand". A long rubric explains all this), covered with the asteriskos and veils, and the offerings are repeatedly incensed. The deacon then incenses the prothesis, altar, sanctuary, nave, and the celebrant. (A detailed account of the now elaborate rite of the Proskomide is given in the "Echos d'Orient", III, 65-78.) They then go to the altar, kiss the Gospel on it and the deacon holding up his orarion says: It is time to sacrifice to the Lord. Here begin the Litanies (ektenai or synaptai). The doors of the ikonostasis are opened, and the deacon goes out through the north door. Standing before the royal doors he chants the Great Litany, praying for peace, the Church, the patriarch or synod (in Orthodox countries for the sovereign and his family), the city, travellers, etc., etc. To each clause the choir answer "Kyrie eleison". Then follows the first antiphon (on Sundays Ps. cii), and the celebrant at the altar says a prayer. The Short Litany is sung in the same way (the clauses are different, Brightman, op. cit., 362-375) with an antiphon and prayer, and then a third litany; on Sundays the third antiphon is the Beatitudes.

The Little Entrance

Here follows the Little Entrance. The deacon has gone back to the celebrant's side. They come out through the north door in procession, the deacon holding the book of the Gospels, with acolytes bearing candles. The troparia (short hymns) are sung, ending with the Trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us" (three times); then "Glory be to the Father", etc. "As it was in the beginning", etc. -- and again "Holy God", etc. Meanwhile the celebrant says other prayers. A reader sings the Epistle; a Gradual is sung; the deacon sings the Gospel, having incensed the book; more prayers follow. Then come prayers for the catechumens, and they are dismissed by the deacon: "All catechumens go out. Catechumens go out. All catechumens go away. Not one of the catechumens [shall stay]." -- Of course nowadays there are no catechumens. The prayers for the catechumens bring us to the first variant between the two Liturgies. The one said by the celebrant is different (and, as an exception, shorter) in St. Basil's rite (Brightman, op. cit., 374 and 401). The deacon says, "All the faithful again and again pray to the Lord in peace", and repeats several times the curious exclamation "Wisdom!" (sophia) that occurs repeatedly in the Byzantine Rite -- before the Gospel he says "Wisdom! Upright!" -- sophia. orthoi., meaning that the people should stand up.

The Liturgy of the Faithful

The Liturgy of the Faithful begins here. Prayers for the faithful follow (different in the two rites, Brightman, op. cit., 375-377 and 400-401); and then comes the dramatic moment of the Liturgy, the Great Entrance. The celebrant and deacon go to the prothesis, the offerings are incensed. The deacon covers his shoulders with the great veil (see AER) and takes the diskos (paten) with the bread; the thurible hangs from his hand; the celebrant follows with the chalice. Acolytes go in front and form a solemn procession. Meanwhile the choir sings the Cherubic Hymn (Cheroubikos hymnos): "Let us, who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-giving Trinity the thrice holy hymn, put away all earthly cares so as to receive the King of all things [here the procession comes out through the north door] escorted by the army of angels. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia." The procession goes meanwhile all round the church and enters the sanctuary by the royal doors. The Cherubic Hymn has a very elaborate and effective melody (Rebours, op. cit., 156-164) with almost endless pneums. This ceremony, with its allusion to the entrance of the "King of all things" before the offerings are consecrated, is a curious instance of a dramatic representation that anticipates the real moment of the Consecration. After some more prayers at the altar, different in the two liturgies, the deacon cries out, "The doors! The doors! Let us attend in wisdom", and the doors of the ikonostasis are shut. The Creed is then sung.

The Anaphora (Canon)

Here begins the Anaphora (Canon). There is first a dialogue, "Lift up your hearts" etc., as with us, and the celebrant begins the Eucharistic prayer: "It is meet and just to sing to Thee, to bless Thee, praise Thee and give thanks to Thee in all places. . . ." The form in St. Basil's Rite is much longer. It is not said aloud, but at the end he lifts up his voice and says: "Crying, singing, proclaiming the hymn of victory and saying:" -- and the choir sings "Holy, Holy, Holy" etc., as in our Mass. Very soon, after a short prayer (considerably longer in St. Basil's Rite) the celebrant comes to the words of Institution. He lifts up his Voice and sings: "Take and eat: this is my Body that is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins"; and through the Ikonostasis the choir answers "Amen". Then: "Drink ye all of this, this is my Blood of the New Testament that is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins." R. Amen -- as before. The Orthodox, as is known, do not believe that these words consecrate, so they go straight on to the Anamnesis, and a special rubric in their Euchologion (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63) warns them not to make any reverence here. The Uniats, on the other hand, make a profound reverence after each form. The Anamnesis (our "Unde et memores") again is longer in the Basilian Liturgy. The Epiklesis follows. The deacon invites the celebrant in each case: "Bless, sir, the holy bread [or wine]." The two forms (of Basil and Chrysostom) may stand as specimens of the principle of abbreviation that distinguishes the later rite. In St. Basil's Liturgy it is: "We pray and beseech thee, O Holy of Holy ones, that according to the mercy of thy favour thy Holy Spirit come down on us and on these present gifts to bless them, sanctify them and to make...." (Chrysostom: "Send down thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts...."). Then, after an irrelevant interpolation, with two verses from Ps. l about the celebrant's own soul, he continues (Basil): "this bread the precious Body itself of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (Chrys.: "and make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ"). Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice." Celebrant (Basil): "But this chalice the Precious Blood itself of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (Chrys.: "And what it is in this Chalice the precious Blood of Thy Christ"). Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, both." Celebrant (Basil): "That was shed for the life and salvation of the world" (Chrys.: "Changing it by thy Holy Spirit"). Deacon: "Amen. Amen. Amen." Both then make a deep prostration, and the deacon waves the ripidion (fan) over the Blessed Sacrament. This ceremony, now interpreted mystically as a symbol of adoring angels, was certainly once a practical precaution. They have no pall over the chalice and there is a danger of flies. The waving of the ripidion occurs several times during the Liturgy. In the Byzantine Rite, as in all the Antiochene family of liturgies, the Intercession follows at this point. First comes a memory of saints; the deacon then reads the Diptychs of the Dead, and the celebrant says a prayer into which he may introduce the names of any of the faithful departed for whom he wishes to pray. Prayers for the living follow (in Russia for the second time occur the names of "Our Orthodox and Christ-loving Lord Nicholas, Czar and Autocrat of all the Russias" and of all his "right-believing and God-fearing" family), with the names of the patriarch (or Synod) and metropolitan, and the ending; "and all [masc.] and all [fem.]" kai panton kai pason. The deacon then reads the Diptychs of the Living; more prayers for them follow. Here ends the Anaphora. The celebrant blesses the people: "The mercy of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be with all of you." Choir: "And with thy spirit." And the deacon goes out to his place before the ikonostasis and reads a litany, praying for various spiritual and temporal favours, to each clause of which the choir answers: "Kyrie eleison ", and at the last clause -- "Having prayed in the union of faith and in the communion of the Holy Ghost, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ, our God." To Thee, O Lord (Soi, Kyrie). -- Meanwhile the celebrant says a long prayer silently. The people sing the Lord's Prayer, and the celebrant adds the clause: For Thine is the Kingdom" etc. The Inclination follows. The deacon says, "Bow your heads to the Lord" (our "Humiliate capita vestra Domino"); they answer, "To Thee, O Lord", and the celebrant says the Prayer of Inclination (different in the two Liturgies). The preparation for Communion begins here. The deacon winds his orarion (stole) around his body, the curtain of the royal doors (they have besides the doors a curtain that is continually drawn backward and forward during the Liturgy) is drawn back, and the celebrant elevates the Holy Eucharist saying, "Holy things for the holy", to which the answer is: "One only is holy, one only is Lord, Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father. Amen." The Communion hymn (koinonikon) of the day is sung, and the Communion begins. While the clergy Communicate in the Sanctuary a sermon is sometimes preached. The celebrant breaks the Holy Bread into four parts, as it is marked, and arranges them on the diskos thus: --

    I S   
N I   K A
    X S   

(Where I=Iota, S=Sigma)

He puts the fraction marked (IOTA-SIGMA) into the chalice, and the deacon again pours into it a little warm water (the use of warm water is a very old peculiarity of this rite).The part marked (CHI-SIGMA) is divided into as many parts as there are priests and deacons to Communicate. Meanwhile, prayers are said; those about to Communicate ask pardon of their offences against each other. The celebrant says, "Behold I draw near to our immortal King" etc., and receives Holy Communion in the form of bread, saying: The precious and all-holy Body of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is given to me N. priest [or bishop] for the forgiveness of my sins and for life everlasting." Then he says, "Deacon, approach". and gives him Communion with the same form (To thee N. deacon etc.). The celebrant then drinks of the chalice with a corresponding form -- The precious and all-holy Blood -- and communicates the deacon as before. After Communion each says silently a very beautiful prayer -- I believe, Lord, and I confess that Thou art in very truth Christ, the Son of the living God etc. (Brightman, op. cit., 394.) The rest of the clergy are Communicated from the portion marked (IOTA-SIGMA), that has been put into the chalice and is therefore soaked in the consecrated wine, with one form (The precious and all-holy Body and Blood). The celebrant divides the portions marked NI and KA, and the deacon puts them into the chalice with a sponge. The doors are opened and the deacon says, "Draw near in the fear of God and with faith". The celebrant comes down to the doors with the chalice and the spoon and communicates the people with the Holy Bread dipped in the chalice, and with one form, as before. The people stand to receive Communion (the Byzantine Rite knows practically no kneeling at all). Finally, the deacon puts all the remaining particles into the chalice and carries it back to the prothesis. Those other particles (prosphora) originally cut off from the bread have lain on the diskos (paten) since the proskomide. It has been a great question whether they are consecrated or not. The Orthodox now say that they are not, and the deacon puts them into the chalice after the Communion. It is obviously a question of the celebrant's intention. The Uniat priests are told to consecrate them too, and in their Liturgy the people receive in Communion (Fortescue, op. cit., 417; "Echos d'Orient", III, 71-73).

Dismissal

Here begins the Dismissal. The deacon unwinds his orarion, goes back to the choir before the ikonostasis, and says a short litany again with the choir. He then goes to the prothesis and consumes all that is left of the Holy Eucharist with the prosphora. Meanwhile, some of the bread originally cut up at the Prothesis has remained there all the time. This is now brought to the celebrant, blessed by him, and given to the people as a sacramental (the French pain bénit -- see ANTIDORON). After some more prayers the celebrant and deacon go to the diakonikon, the doors are shut, they take off their vestments, and the Liturgy is over. The whole service is very much longer than our Mass. It lasts about two hours. It should be noted that all the time that the choir are singing or litanies being said the priest is saying other prayers silently (mystikos). The Byzantine Rite has no provision for low Mass. As they say the Liturgy only on Sundays and feast-days, they have less need for such a rite. In cases of necessity, where there is no deacon, the celebrant supplies his part as best he can. The Uniats, who have begun to celebrate every day, have evolved a kind of low Liturgy; and at the Greek College at Rome they have a number of little manuscript books containing an arrangement for celebrating with a priest and one lay server only. But in the Levant, at any rate, the Liturgy is always sung, and incense is always used; so that the minimum of persons required for the Liturgy is a celebrant, server, and one other man who forms the choir.

Liturgy of the Presanctified

The Liturgy of the Presanctified is fitted into the general framework of St. Chrysostom's Rite. It is usually celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays in the first six weeks of Lent, and on all the days of Holy Week, except Maundy Thursday and Easter Eve which have the real Liturgy (of St. Basil). On other days in Lent there is no liturgical service at all. On the Sunday before more loaves (prosphorai) are used than otherwise. The same rite of preparation is made over all. After the Elevation the celebrant dips the other prosphoras into the chalice with the spoon, and places it in another chalice in the tabernacle (artophorion) kept for this purpose. The Liturgy of the Presanctified is said after Vespers (hesperinos), which forms its first part. There is of course no further Proskomide, but the preparatory prayers are said by celebrant and deacon as usual. The Great Litany is introduced into the middle of Vespers. The hymn phos ilaron (see below) is sung as usual, and the lessons are read. The prayers for catechumens and their dismissal follow. The Great Entrance is made with the already consecrated offerings, and a changed form of the Cherubic Hymn is sung (Maltzew, "Die Liturgien", 149). The curtain of the royal doors is half-drawn across, the whole Anaphora is omitted, and they go on at once to the Short Litany before the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer, Inclination, and Elevation with the form: "The presanctified Holy Things to the holy" follow. Wine and warm water are poured into the chalice, but not, of course, consecrated. Communion is given with one form only. The Blessed Sacrament already dipped in consecrated wine is now dipped in unconsecrated wine. The celebrant drinks of this wine after his Communion without any prayer. The Liturgy ends as usual (with different forms in some parts), and the deacon consumes what is left of the Holy Eucharist (unless some of it is again reserved for the next Presanctified Liturgy and the wine in the Chalice. This is the merest outline of the rite. Its earlier part is inextricably joined to the Vespers (Maltzew, op. cit., 121-158).

The Divine Office

The Divine Office is very long and complicated. When sung in choir it lasts about eight hours. It is said entirely only by monks. Secular priests say part of it, as their devotion dictates. The Uniats frequently apply to Rome to know what to do, and the answer is always: Servetur consuetudo, by which is meant that their secular clergy should say as much of the Office as is customary. It is impossible for them to say it all. The Office is divided into the hours named above (under Service-books) which correspond to ours, with additional short hours (mesoora) intermediate between Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers. It is made up of psalms, lessons, prayers, and especially of a great number of hymns in rhythmical prose. The Psalter is divided into twenty parts called kathismata, each of which is made up of three sections (staseis). The whole Psalter is sung every week. The most important of the many kinds of hymns are the following: A canon (kanon) is made up of nine odes corresponding to the nine canticles (of Moses, Ex., xv, 1-19; Deut., xxxii, 1-43; of Anna, I Kings, ii, 1-10; Hab., iii, 2-19; Is., xxvi, 9-20; Jonas, ii, 2-10; the Benedicite, Magnificat, and Benedictus) sung at Lauds. Of these canticles the second is sung only in Lent; therefore most canons have no second ode. Each ode is supposed to correspond more or less to its canticle. Thus the sixth ode will generally contain a reference to Jona's whale. Otherwise the canon is always about the feast on which it is sung, and much ingenuity is expended in forcing some connexion between the event of the day and the allusions in the canticles. The odes are further divided into a heirmos and troparia of any number, from three to twenty or more. The heirmos sets the tune for each ode (see PLAIN CHANT), and the troparia follow it. The last troparion of each ode always refers to Our Lady and is called theotokion. The odes often make an acrostic in their initial letters; sometimes they are alphabetic. In long canons a poem is intercalated in the middle during which people may sit (they stand for nearly the whole Office); it is called theotokion. Three troparia form an kathisma ("house", cf. Italian stanza). The canons for the weekdays are in the Oktoechos, those for immovable feasts in the Menaias, for movable ones in the Triodion and Pentekostarion (see above under Service-books). One of the most famous of all is St. John Damascene's Golden Canon for Easter Day (translated by Dr. J. M. Neale in his "Hymns of the Eastern Church", 4th ed., London, pp. 30-44). Other kinds of chant are the kontakion, a short poem about the feast, the stichos a versicle, generally from a psalm (like our antiphons), which introduces a sticheron, or hymn sung at Matins and Vespers. An idiomelon is a troparion that has its own melody, instead of following a heirmos (for other kinds of chant see Nilles, "Kalend. Man.", pp. lvii-lxix, and the example he gives from the feast of the Transfiguration, 6 August). The Great Doxology (doxologia) is our "Gloria in excelsis", the small one our "Gloria Patri". The Hymnos Akathistos ("standing hymn") is a complete Office in honour of Our Lady and of her Annunciation. It has all the Hours and is made up of psalms, odes, etc., like other Offices. It is sung very solemnly on the Saturday before the second Sunday before Easter; and they sing parts of it every Friday evening and Saturday morning in Lent. It is always sung standing. The Hymnos Akathistos is printed at the end of the Horologion. P. de Meester, O.S.B., has edited it with an Italian translation (Akolouthia tou akathistou hymnou. -- Officio dell' inno acatisto, Rome, 1903). At the end of Vespers every day is sung the famous phos ilaron, as the evening light disappears, and the lamps are lit: --

-- Keble's translation in the "Hymns, Ancient and Modern", No. 18.

The Seven Great Mysteries (Sacraments)

There are, lastly, services for the administration of the Seven Great Mysteries (the Seven Sacraments) that are printed in the Euchologion after the liturgies (ed. cit., pp. 136-288).

Baptism

Baptism is always conferred by immersion (the Orthodox have grave doubts as to the validity of baptism by infusion. See Fortescue, Orth. E. Church, p. 420). The child is anointed all over its body and dipped three times with its face towards the east. The form is: "The servant of God N. is baptized in the name of the Father, Amen, and of the Son, Amen, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen."

Confirmation

Confirmation follows at once and is conferred by priests (the Holy See recognizes this confirmation as valid and neither rebaptizes nor reconfirms converts from Orthodoxy). The whole body is again anointed with chrism (to hagion hyron) prepared very elaborately with fifty-five various substances by the cumenical patriarch on Maundy Thursday (Fortescue, op. cit., 425-426). The form is: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Euch., 136-144). The Orthodox never rebaptize when they are sure of the validity of former baptism; but they reconfirm continually. Confirmation has become the usual rite of admittance into their Church, even in the case of apostates who have already been confirmed orthodoxly.

Holy Communion

The pious Orthodox layman Communicates as a rule only four times a year, at Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday, and the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God (15 August). The Blessed Sacrament is reserved for the sick in the artophorion, (or ierophylakion) under both kinds more or less, that is to say it has been dipped into the chalice and allowed to dry. It is given to the sick with a spoon and with the usual form (see above under Holy Liturgy). They have no tradition of reverence for the reserved Eucharist.

Penance

Penance (metanoia) is administered rarely, usually on the same occasions as Holy Communion. They have no confessionals. The ghostly father (pneumatikos) sits before the ikonostasis under the picture of Our Lord, the penitent kneels before him (one of the rare cases of kneeling is in this rite), and several prayers are said, to which the choir answers "Kyrie eleison". The "choir" is always the penitent himself. Then the ghostly father is directed to say "in a Cheerful voice: Brother, be not ashamed that you come before God and before me, for you do not confess to me but to God who is present here." He asks the penitent his sins, says that only God can forgive him, but that Christ gave this power to his Apostles saying: "Whose sins ye shall forgive", etc., and absolves him with a deprecatory form in a long prayer in which occur the words: "May this same God, through me a sinner, forgive you all now and for ever." (Euch., pp. 221-223.)

Holy Order

Holy Order (cheirotonia) is given by laying on the right hand only. The form is (for deacons): "The grace of God, that always strengthens the weak and fills the empty, appoints the most religious sub-deacon N. to be deacon. Let us then pray for him that the grace of the Holy Ghost may come to him." Long prayers follow, with allusions to St. Stephen and the diaconate; the bishop vests the new deacon, giving him an orarion and a ripidion. For priests and bishops there is the same form, with the obvious variants, "the most religious deacon N. to be priest", or "the most religious elect N. to be Metropolitan of the holy Metropolis N." (nearly all their bishops have the title Metropolitan), and the subjects receive their vestments and instruments. Priests and bishops concelebrate at once with the ordainer (Euch., 160-181). The Orthodox believe that the grace of Holy orders may perish through heresy or schism, so they generally reordain converts (the Russian Church has officially refused to do this, Fortescue, op. cit., 423-424).

Matrimony

Matrimony (gamos) is often called the "crowning" (stephanoma) from the practice of crowning the spouses (Euch., 238-252). They wear these crowns for a week, and have a special service for taking them off again (Euch., 252).

The Anointing of the Sick

The Anointing of the Sick (euchelaion) is administered (when possible) by seven priests. The oil contains as a rule wine, in memory of the Good Samaritan. It is blessed by a priest just before it is used. They use a very long form invoking the all-holy Theotokos, the "moneyless physicians" Sts. Cosmas and Damian, and other saints. They anoint the forehead, chin, cheeks, hands, nostrils, and breast with a brush. Each priest present does the same (Euch., 260-288). The service is, as usual, very long. They anoint people who are only slightly ill, (they very much resent our name: Extreme Unction), and in Russia on Maundy Thursday the Metropolitans of Moscow and Novgorod anoint everyone who presents himself, as a preparation for Holy Communion (Echos d'Orient, II, 193-203).

Sacramentals

There are many Sacramentals. People are sometimes anointed with the oil taken from a lamp that burns before a holy icon (occasionally with the form for confirmation: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost"). They have besides the antidoron another kind of blessed bread -- the kolyba eaten in honour of some saint or in memory of the dead. On the Epiphany ("The Holy Lights" -- ta hagia phota) there is a solemn blessing of the waters. They have a great number of exorcisms, very stern laws of fasting (involving abstinence from many things besides flesh meat), and blessings for all manner of things. These are to be found in the Euchologion. Preaching was till lately almost a lost art in the Orthodox Church; now a revival of it has begun (Gelzer, Geistliches u. Weltliches, etc., 76-82). There is a long funeral service (Euch., ed. cit., 393-470). For all these rites (except the Liturgy) a priest does not wear all his vestments but (over his cassock) the epitrachelion and phainolion. The high black hat without a brim (kalemeukion) worn by all priests of this rite is well known. It is worn with vestments as well as in ordinary life. Bishops and dignitaries have a black veil over it. All clerks wear long hair and a beard. For a more detailed account of all these rites see "Orth. Eastern Church", pp. 418-428.

The Orthodox Service-books in Greek are published at their official press (ho phoinix) at Venice (various dates: the Euchologion quoted here, 1898); the Uniat ones at Rome (Propaganda). There is also an Athenian edition; and the Churches that use translations have published their versions. Provost ALEXIOS MALTZEW (of the Russian Embassy church at Berlin) has edited all the books in Old Slavonic with a parallel German translation and notes (Berlin, 1892); RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (2d ed., 2 vols., Frankfort, 1847); NEALE, The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St Basil (London, 1875, in Greek); another volume contains The Translations of the Primitive Liturgies of St. Mark, etc.; ROBERTSON, The Divine Liturgies of Our Fathers among the Saints John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and that of the Presanctified (Greek and English, London 1894); DE MEESTER, La divine liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome (Greek and French, Paris, 1907); i He theia leitourgia, periechousa ton esperinon, k.t.l. (Athens, 1894); CHARON, Les saintes et divines Liturgies, etc. (Beirut, 1904); STORFF, Die griechiechen Liturgien, XLI of THALHOFER, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (Kempten, 1877); Kitãb al-liturgiãt al-ilahiyyeh (Melchite Use in Arabic, Beirut, 1899); GOAR, Euchologion, sive Rituale Gr corum (2nd ed., Venice, 1720); PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1870); ANON., Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform (Münster, 1893); KATTENBUSCH, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Konfessionskunde: Die orthodoxe anatolische Kirche (Freiburg im Br., 1892); NILLES, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesi (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896-97); PRINCE MAX OF SAXONY, Pr lectiones de Liturgiis orientalibus (Freiburg im Br., 1908), I; HAPGOOD, Service-Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic (Gr co-Russian) Church (Boston and New York, 1906); ALLATIUS, De libris et rebus eccl. Gr corum (Cologne, 1646); CLUGNET, Dictionnaire grec-français des noms liturgiques en usage dans l'église grecque (Paris, 1895); ARCHATZIKAKI, Etudes sur les principales Fêtes chrétiennes dans l'ancienne Eglise d'Orient (Geneva, 1904); DE MEESTER, Officio dell' inno acatisto (Greek and Italian, Rome, 1903); GELZER, Geistliches und Weltliches aus dem türkisch-griechischen Orient (Leipzig, 1900); GAISSER, Le système musical de l'Eglise grecque (Maredsous, 1901); REBOURS, Traitê de psaltique. Théorie et pratique du chant dans l'Eglise grecque (Paris, 1906); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Ecclesiastical Constitutions

The term constitution denotes, in general, the make-up of a body, either physical or moral. Used in reference to civil or religious societies, the word, in the singular, signifies the fundamental law determining their governing, legislative, and executive organism; in the plural it denotes the enactments, ordinances, and laws issued by the supreme authority to further the object of the society. In legal language the term constitutiones denotes only church ordinances, civil ordinances being termed leges, laws. The constitutiones ecclesiastic have in common with the leges civiles the binding power derived from the authority of their framers, but they differ from them as the Church differs from civil society, viz, in their origin, object, and Sanction. Civil laws are enactments of a power directly human and only Divine in its first cause; their primary object is the furtherance of temporal welfare; and their sanction, temporal penalties. Ecclesiastical constitutions, on the other hand, emanate from an authority directly of Divine institution; their ultimate object is to promote the salvation of souls in the Kingdom of God on earth; their sanction consists in spiritual penalties.

In the total complex of laws bearing on matters spiritual, ecclesiastical constitutions stand midway between the Divine and the natural law. The Divine law is contained in the Scriptures interpreted by living, authoritative tradition, e.g. the Ten Commandments, the constitutions of the Church, the administration of the sacraments. Natural law rests on the dictates of human reason, e.g. the law of Self-preservation, obedience to authority, Divine worship. Both the Divine and the natural laws are often insufficiently determined; the Church expounds them and adapts them to particular times, places, and persons. Chief among ecclesiastical constitutions are the ordinances emanating from general councils (see COUNCILS, GENERAL, X, XI) and from the Apostolic See (see CONSTITUTIONS, PAPAL); these are the constitutiones ecclesiastic in the strictest sense of the term. Episcopal constitutions are issued by bishops either Singly or assembled in synods, e.g. the constitutions of the ten provincial and three plenary councils of Baltimore, which have adapted the ancient constitutions of the Universal Church to the peculiar national and political situation of the United States of America.

J. WILHELM

Papal Constitutions

(Latin constituere, to establish, to decree.)

Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the faithful or for special classes or individuals. From the earliest times, the Christians of the whole world have consulted the popes on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline. The earliest instance is the well-known appeal from Corinth to Pope Clement I, during the lifetime of St. John the Apostle, in the first century of the Christian Era. From that time on, requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ's chief Apostle and His vicar on earth. The fact that the decrees of Church councils, whether general, provincial, or even diocesan, were anciently as a rule forwarded to the pope for his revision or confirmation, gave occasion for many papal constitutions during the early ages. After the time of Constantine the Great, owing to the greater liberty allowed to the Church, such intercourse with the Apostolic See became more frequent and more open. St. Jerome, in the fourth century (Ep. cxxiii), testifies to the number of responses requested of the sovereign pontiff from both the Eastern and the Western Church during the time he acted as secretary to Pope Damasus. That these papal responses soon began to constitute an important section of canon law, is evident from statements in the letters of various Roman pontiffs. The decretalia and constituta of the Apostolic See were recognized as laws or as interpretations of existing canons binding the particular Churches to their observance. The fact that cumenical councils required the papal confirmation before their decrees were valid (a principle expressly admitted by the early councils themselves) tended not a little to direct the attention of all Christians to the fullness of jurisdiction residing in the successor of St. Peter. Hence the professions of faith sent to the popes by newly elected bishops and by emperors on their succession to the throne.

Turning to the strictly canonical aspect of the case, the word constitution is derived from con (cum) and statuendo, and therefore means a common statute. It is consequently synonomous in most respects with law. In fact, a papal constitution is a legal enactment of the ruler of the Church, just as a civil law is a decree emanating from a secular prince. Reiffenstuel declares that the difference of name between ecclesiastical and civil statutes is very proper, since a secular ruler derives his authority immediately from the people, and hence it is really the people who make the laws, while the pope receives his power immediately from God and is himself the source whence all Church regulations proceed. As a matter of fact, however, while it is true that ecclesiastical laws are generally denominated "constitutions", yet they are occasionally designated as "laws" in canonical jurisprudence (e. g. Can. Leges Ecclesiæ, 3, Q. 6). It must not be supposed, however, that even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances; it is also employed for conciliar, synodal, and episcopal mandates, though more rarely in later times. The name canon is generally, though not exclusively, given to conciliar decrees (see CANONS, ECCLESIASTICAL). Letters emanating from the pope, though all designated constitutions, receive more specific names according to their form and their subject matter. As to their form, pontifical constitutions may be either Bulls or Briefs. The former are used for the more important and permanent decrees and begin: Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei; the latter are headed by the name of the ruling pontiff: Pius PP. X. Pope Leo XIII (29 Dec., 1878) made some changes in the exterior form of papal Bulls (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). As to subject-matter, the term constitution, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed. When the papal letters are addressed to the bishops of the entire Church, they are denominated Encyclicals. This is the most usual form employed by the popes for treating questions of doctrine and discipline. When pontifical enactments take the form of responses they are called decretal epistles. If they be issued motu proprio (that is without a request having been made to the Holy See), they are called decreta, though this name has also a more general significance (see DECREES). Ordinances issued to individuals concerning matters of minor or transient importance are called Rescripts (see RESCRIPTS, PAPAL).

Before issuing constitutions the pope usually takes counsel with his advisers. These counsellors have varied in the different stages of church history. During the first eleven centuries, the Roman presbyterate and the suburbicarian bishops were formed into councils by the pope whenever he wished to investigate matters of doctrine or discipline. The synodal letters, or constitutions, issuing from these assemblies owed their importance and binding force to the primatial jurisdiction of the throne of Peter, for these gatherings were not cumenical councils in any sense of the word. History records a long list of these Roman councils from the second to the eleventh century. The papal constitutions issued at the close of their celebration were as various as the subject-matter of the councils. The paschal question, the baptism of heretics, the heresies of Sabellius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and others, the restoration of patriarchs and bishops to their sees, ordinances concerning the monastic state, the election of the pope, the right of investiture -- all found treatment and decision in these Roman councils and gave occasion to important pontifical constitutions. These rulings were reverenced as law throughout the Universal Church, East and West, and constitute an important witness to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. After the eleventh century, these Roman councils grew more infrequent and finally ceased altogether. This was owing to the importance gradually accruing to the cardinals, who succeeded the Roman presbyterate as the senate of the pope. Consistories of the cardinal-bishops, -priests, and -deacons were held twice and then thrice a week in the Apostolic Palace; and to these consistories the pontiff proposed the questions submitted to the Holy See before he drew up his constitution deciding them. The consistory was the ordinary tribunal and audience of the pope for the transaction of all the business of the Universal Church. (See CARDINAL) From the sixteenth century to our own time, a third period in the methods of government and counsel is to be distinguished. The rise of the Sacred Roman Congregations, with their separate tribunals, their consultors, and trained officials, has brought about a change in the preparation of papal constitutions. It is to these congregations that the pope looks for aid in preparing the subject-matter of his letters to the Church. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions. Bishops, therefore, are not at liberty to accept or refuse papal enactments because, in their judgment, they are ill-suited to the times. Still less can the lower clergy or the civil power (see EXEQUATUR; PLACET) possess any authority to declare pontifical constitutions invalid or prevent their due promulgation. The Gallican opinions to the contrary are no longer tenable after the decrees of the Council of the Vatican (Sess. IV, ch. iii). If a papal constitution, published in Rome for the whole Church, were not formally promulgated in a particular region, the faithful would nevertheless be bound by it, if it concerned faith or morals. If it referred to matters of discipline only, its observance would not be urgent, not because of any defect in its binding force, but solely because in such circumstances the pope is presumed to have suspended the obligation for the time being. This leads to the question of the proper promulgation (q. v.) of papal laws (see LAW). The common teaching now is that promulgation in Rome makes them obligatory for the whole world. The method employed is to affix the decrees at the portals of St. Peter's, of St. John Lateran, of the Apostolic Chancery and in the Piazza de' Fiori.

SMITH, Elem. of Eccl. Law (New York, 1895), I; AICHNER, Comp. Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895); REIFFENSTUEL, Jus Can. Universum (Paris, 1864).

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Consubstantiation

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Impanation", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connection with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ's words, "This is my body", were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This is maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that "the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not" (panis sacratus in altari, salvâ suâ substantiâ, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat-Cf. Martène and Durand, "Thesaurus Novus Anecd.", IV, col 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned at various councils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents If were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn (q. v.), Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him. It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog, IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX 1228), and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance, (1418 -- "The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar", and the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

Berengarius and his modern followers have appealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in support of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is not contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taught by the Fathers, is shown in the article TRANSUBSTANTIATION. In the discussions of the Father about the two natures in the one Person the analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist was frequently referred to, this led to the expression of views favoring Impanation. But after the definitive victory of St. Cyril's doctrine, the analogy was seen to be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire, etc., 2nd series, p. 319 sqq.) The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, "This is my body", disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d'Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumbling block to Anglican writers, who have quoted some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneous opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, "The Doctrine of the Real Presence" (1855).

In addition to the works mentioned, see HARPER, Peace through the Truth, (London, 1866), I; FRANZELIN, De SS Euch. (Rome, 1873), thes. xiv; SCWANE, Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg im Br., 1882), III; VERNET in Dict. de théol. cath. s.v. Bérénguer de Tours; STREBER in Kirchenlex, s.v. Consubstantatio; HEDLEY, The Holy Eucharist (1907); WAGGETT, The Holy Eucharist (Anglican, London, 1906); GORE, The Body of Christ (London, 1907).

T.B. SCANNELL

Diocesan Consultors

Diocesan consultors are a certain number of priests in each diocese of the United States who act as official advisers of the bishop in certain matters pertaining to the administration of the diocese. As a body they take the place of the cathedral chapter as established elsewhere by the general law of the Church. Their appointment was recommended (1866) by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The Third Plenary Council (1884) decreed that they should be constituted a diocesan council, and defined their particular rights and duties.

MANNER OF APPOINTMENT

The diocesan consultors, it was decreed (n. 18), should be six, or at least four, in number. Where neither number is possible, there should be at least two. They hold office for three years; but they may be reappointed or selected at the expiration of each term. The manner of their election consists in the appointment by the bishop alone of half of their number, and of the other half by the bishop also, after having taken the vote of the clergy. All the clergy exercising the sacred ministry in the diocese send, in writing, to the bishop three names for every consultor to be elected. From the names thus proposed the bishop selects those whom he judges most fit for the office. At stated periods they are convened and presided over by the bishop, four times, or at least twice, a year, and, as occasion requires, monthly. In case of the death resignation, or removal of a consultor, the bishop appoints his successor with the advice of the other consultors.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The diocesan council has certain rights and duties: (A) when the see is filled, and (B) when it is vacant.

(A) When the see is filled, the bishop is bound to ask the advice of the diocesan consultors:

• (1) For convoking and promulgating a diocesan synod;
• (2) for dividing missions or parishes;
• (3) for giving over a mission or parish to a religious community;
• (4) for appointing deputies for the diocesan seminary;
• (5) for appointing a new diocesan consultor and synodal examiners to conduct the examination for vacant parishes;
• (6) for alienating church property, when the sum exceeds five thousand dollars;
• (7) for determining what missions are to be made parishes with irremovable rectors and appointing the first irremovable rectors in the diocese;
• (8) for fixing the pension of an irremovable rector who has resigned or who has been removed for cause;
• (9) for determining, out of synod, the salary of rectors.

In all these cases the consultors give their opinion collectively, i. e. in a body, and by secret ballot if they deem proper. The bishop, however, although bound to seek their advice in these matters, is not obliged to follow it.

(B) When the see is vacant:

• (1) the administrator must follow the same procedure, i. e. he must ask the opinion of the diocesan consultors in the above-stated cases.
• (2) The expiration of the three-year term of the consultors within the period of the vacancy does not affect their tenure of office. They remain in office until the accession of the new bishop who, within six months from his consecration, should hold a new election of diocesan consultors.
• (3) In the election of a new bishop the council of 1884 conceded a voice to the consultors, as representatives of the clergy of the diocese. Together with the irremovable rectors they meet within thirty days after the vacancy occurs under the presidency of the archbishop of the province, or, if he be hindered, of a suffragan deputed by him. If the vacancy be that of the archbishopric the senior suffragan presides, or one deputed by him. The voting is by secret ballot. Three candidates are selected whose names are sent to the S. Cong. de Propagandâ Fide, and to the other bishops of the province, who meet, within ten days, to approve or disapprove of the candidates presented by the consultors and irremovable rectors. The bishops send their own list to Rome. The pope may reject both lists and appoint as bishop some one who is on neither.
• (4) When there is a question of selecting a coadjutor with the right of succession the consultors with the irremovable rectors have a voice just as in the election of a new bishop.
• (5) This is also the case where a new diocese is formed out of one or more existing dioceses. In that case, only the irremovable rectors within the limits of the new diocese join with the consultors of the older diocese or dioceses. (See BALTIMORE, PLENARY COUNCILS OF.)

Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1866); Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1884), nos. 17-22; SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1886); MEEHAN, Comp. Jur. Canonici (Rochester, New York, 1899); NILLES, Comment. in Conc. Plen. Balt. (Innsbruck. 1888), III.

JOSEPH F. MOONEY.

Philippe du Contant de la Molette

Theologian and Biblical scholar, born at Côte-Saint-André, in Dauphiné, France, 29 August, 1737; died on the scaffold during The Terror, 1793. He studied at the Sorbonne, and, in 1765, defended a thesis on Job, in six languages. Louis XV was so well pleased that he allowed him to pass the examinations for the licentiate without the required delays, a privilege, however, which de la Molette did not use. Later on, he became Vicar-General of the Diocese of Vienne, France. As a Biblical author, he shows great erudition and is well versed in the Oriental languages, but be lacks originality, and his criticism is often misleading. His works, all published in Paris, are the following. "Essai sur l'Ecriture Sainte, ou Tableau historique des avantages que l'on peut tirer des langues orientales pour la parfaite intelligence des Livres Saints" (1775); "Nouvelle méthode pour entrer dans le vrai sens de l'Ecriture sainte" (1777); "La Genèse expliquée d'après les textes primitifs", etc. (1777), 3 vols., a work intended especially as a refutation of Voltaire; "L'Exode expliqué", 3 vols. (1780); the thesis that he had defended in 1765 is printed in the beginning of this work; "Les Psaumes expliqués", etc., 3 vols. (1781); "Traité sur la poésie et la musique des Hébreux" (1781), a continuation of the preceding; "Le Lévitique expliqué", 2 vols. (1785). He had also done considerable work as a preparation for a "Nouvelle Bible polyglotte", but it is doubtful whether he ever published it.

FELLER, Biog. Univ., s. v.; MANGENOT in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.

R. BUTIN.

Gasparo Contarini

Venetian statesman and cardinal, born 16 October, 1483, of an ancient and noble family in Venice; died at Bologna, 24 August, 1542. He received his elementary training in his native city; and afterwards, from 1501 to 1509, he frequented the University of Padua, where he studied Greek, mathematics, Aristotelean philosophy, and theology. He was a close student and acquired the reputation of a great philosopher. After his return to Venice he became, like all the sons of patrician families, a member of the Great Council, and afterwards was named to a commission which administered the debt of the republic. In September, 1520, he was appointed orator or ambassador to the court of the Emperor Charles V (1519-56), with instructions to defend the alliance of his Government with Francis I of France (1515-47), and to prevent all hostile measures of the emperor. In Worms, where he arrived in April, 1521, he heard much about Luther and his errors; but, not being concerned with the matter, he refrained from all interference, and never saw Luther nor spoke to him. From Worms he went with the imperial court to the Netherlands, thence to England, and finally to Spain. In August, 1525, he returned to Venice. A report of his experiences was presented to the Senate 16 November following. During his absence he was named "Savio di terra ferma", i. e. president of a commission charged with the affairs of the Continental possessions of Venice, and he assumed the duties of this office. In 1527 he represented the Republic of Venice in the Congress of Ferrara, where the Duke of Ferrara joined the league, formed against the Emperor Charles V, between France and several states of Italy. In 1528 he was sent as ambassador to the court of Clement VII (1523-34), with instructions to retain the pope in the above-mentioned league, and to defend the action of the republic in withholding from the pope the cities of Ravenna and Cervia, seized during the late invasion of the Constable Bourbon. Contarini failed in both objects. Venice was forced not only to surrender the aforesaid cities, but also to make peace with the emperor; it was concluded through Contarini in January, 1530, at Bologna. On 24 February following, Contarini assisted at the solemn coronation of Charles V in Bologna, and then returned to Venice, where he presented the usual report to the Senate on 9 March. In compensation for his services he was appointed to several high positions in the government of the republic, and ultimately became a member of the Senate.

Contarini was created cardinal by Paul III in 1535. He accepted the honour and went to Rome (Oct., 1535). He used his influence with the pope to suppress abuses in the papal government and to secure virtuous men for the Sacred College. Contarini was the president of a commission appointed by the pope in 1536 to submit plans for a reform of evils in the Roman Curia or in other parts of the Church. It was largely due to him that, early in 1537, the commission could present its programme, the "Consilium de emendandâ ecclesiâ". He advised the pope not to abuse the great jurisdiction placed in his hands; and encouraged his friends among the bishops to take appropriate measures for discipline and good order in their dioceses, setting an example in his own Diocese of Cividale di Belluno, to which he was appointed in October, 1536. St. Ignatius acknowledged that Contarini was largely responsible for the papal approbation of his society (1540). At the desire of Charles V, Contarini was sent as papal legate to Germany in 1541, and took part in the conference held at Ratisbon between Catholics and Protestants in hope of conciliating the latter. As it gradually became evident that the differences in doctrine could not be bridged over, the conference was broken off; Contarini remitted the final decision of all articles of faith to the pope, and returned to Rome. In January, 1542, he was appointed cardinal legate at Bologna, where, after a few months, death put an end to his career. His remains were interred, first in the church of San Petronio, then transferred to the church of the monastery of San Proculo, and finally, in December, 1565, to the family tomb in a chapel of the church of Santa Maria dell' Orto in Venice.

Contarini's principal works are the following:

• (1) "Libri duo de immortalitate animæ';
• (2) "De officio episcopi libri duo";
• (3) "De magistratibus et republicâ Venetorum libri V";
• (4) "Compendii primæ philosophiæ libri VIII";
• (5) "De potestate Pontificis";
• (6) "De elementis libri V";
• (7) "Confutatio articulorum seu quæstionum Lutheri";
• (8) "De libero arbitrio";
• (9) "Conciliorum magis illustrium summa";
• (10) "De Sacramentis christianæ legis et catholicæ ecclesiæ libri IV";
• (11) "De justificatione";
• (12) "Cathechismus";
• (13) "De Prædestinatione";
• (14) "Scholia in epistolas divi Pauli".

In many of these writings Contarini touched upon the questions raised by Luther and other Reformers; in stating the Catholic view, however, he was not always fortunate. Thus, in describing the process of justification, he attributes the result largely to faith — not to faith with incipient charity in the Catholic sense, but to faith in the sense of confidence. However, he departs again from the Protestant view by including in the preparatory stage a real breaking away from sin and turning to good, a repentance and detestation of sin. Thus also, in describing the essence or the causa formalis of justification, he requires not only the supernatural quality inherent in the soul, by which man is constituted just, but, in addition to that, the outward imputation of the merits of Christ, believed to be necessary owing to the deficiency of our nature. It would be unjust, nevertheless, to class Contarini among the partisans of the Reformation. The above-mentioned views were taken only in part from the teaching of the Protestants; as yet the Church had given no definite decision on these matters. Moreover, Contarini wished always to remain a Catholic; at the Conference of Ratisbon he protested repeatedly, that he would sanction nothing contrary to the Catholic teaching, and he left the final decision of all matters of faith to the pope.

DITTRICH, Regesten und Briefe des Cardinals Gasparo Contarini (Braunsberg, 1881); IDEM, Gasparo Contarini, eine Monographie (Braunsberg, 1885); PASTOR in Kirchenlex. (Freiburg im Br., 1884), s. v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER.

Giovanni Contarini

Italian painter of the Venetian School, born at Venice about 1549; died in 1605. Contarini was a contemporary of Jacopo Palma called Palma Giovine. He was a great student of the works of Tintoretto and Titian and is declared to have been an exact imitator of Titian. According to an old story he was so extremely accurate in his portraits that on "sending home one he had taken of Marco Dolce his dogs began to fawn upon it mistaking it for their master". Contarini's work is extremely mannered, soft and sweet, but distinguished by beautiful, rich colouring and executed very much on the lines of Titian's painting. His finest picture is in the Louvre, having been removed from the ducal palace at Venice, and represents the Virgin and Child with St. Mark and St. Sebastian, and the Doge of Venice, Marino Grimani, kneeling before them. Other paintings of his are in the galleries at Berlin, Florence, Milan, and Vienna, and in many of the churches at Venice. He painted easel-pictures of mythological subjects, which are treated with propriety and discretion but are peculiarly lacking in force and strength; in many of the palaces in Venice he decorated ceilings. Some years of his life were passed at the court of the Emperor Rudolf II, with whom he was a great favourite and by whom he was knighted. His work has been described by one writer as a "combination of sugar, cream, mulberry juice, sunbeam and velvet", but the criticism is a little unjust and one or two of his works, for example the "Resurrection" in the church of San Francesco di Paolo at Venice, can claim to be masterly. This picture is certainly a fine piece of colouring, well composed and well carried out.

The chief authority is CARLO RIDOLFI, Venetian Artists (Venice, 1648); BRINTON, The Renaissance in Italian Art (London, 1898); KUGLER, The Italian Schools of Painting (London, 1900).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON.

Contemplation

The idea of contemplation is so intimately connected with that of mystical theology that one cannot be clearly explained independent of the other; hence we shall here set forth what mystical theology is.

PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

Those supernatural acts or states which no effort or labour on our part can succeed in producing, even in the slightest degree or for a single instant, are called mystical. The making of an act of contrition and the reciting of a Hail Mary are supernatural acts, but when one wishes to produce them grace is never refused; hence they are not mystical acts. But to see one's guardian angel, which does not in the least depend on one's own efforts, is a mystical act. To have very ardent sentiments of Divine love is not, in itself, proof that one is in a mystical state, because such love can be produced, at least feebly and for an instant, by our own efforts. The preceding definition is equivalent to that given by St. Teresa in the beginning of her second letter to Father Rodriquez Alvarez. Mystical theology is the science that studies mystical states; it is above all a science based on observation. Mystical theology is frequently confounded with ascetic theology; the latter, however, treats of the virtues. Ascetical writers discuss also the subject of prayer, but they confine themselves to prayer that is not mystical.

Mystical states are called, first, supernatural or infused, by which we mean manifestly supernatural or infused; secondly, extraordinary, indicating that the intellect operates in new way, one which our efforts cannot bring about; thirdly, passive, to show that the soul receives something and is conscious of receiving it. The exact term would be passivo-active, since our activity responds to this reception just as it does in the exercise of our bodily senses. By way of distinction ordinary prayer is called active. The word mystical has been much abused. It has at length come to be applied to all religious sentiments that are somewhat ardent and, indeed, even to simple poetic sentiments. The foregoing definition gives the restricted and theological sense of the word.

Ordinary prayer and acquired contemplation

First of all, a word as to ordinary prayer, which comprises these four degrees:

1. vocal prayer;
2. meditation, also called methodical prayer, or prayer of reflection, in which may be included meditative reading;
3. affective prayer;
4. prayer of simplicity, or of simple gaze.

Only the last two degrees (also called prayers of the heart) will be considered, as they border on the mystical states.

Mental prayer in which the affective acts are numerous, and which consists much more largely of them than of reflections and reasoning, is called affective. Prayer of simplicity is mental prayer in which, first, reasoning is largely replaced by intuition; second, affections and resolutions, though not absent, are only slightly varied and expressed in a few words. To say that the multiplicity of acts has entirely disappeared would be a harmful exaggeration, for they are only notably diminished. In both of these states, but especially in the second, there is one dominant thought or sentiment which recurs constantly and easily (although with little or no development) amid many other thoughts, beneficial or otherwise. This main thought is not continuous but keeps returning frequently and spontaneously. A like fact may be observed in the natural order. The mother who watches over the cradle of her child thinks lovingly of him and does so without reflection and amid interruptions. These prayers differ from meditation only as greater from lesser and are applied to the same subjects. Nevertheless the prayer of simplicity often has a tendency to simplify itself, even respect to its object. It leads one to think chiefly of God and of His presence, but in a confused manner. This particular state, which is nearer than others to the mystical states, is called the prayer of amorous attention to God. Those who bring the charge of idleness against these different states always have an exaggerated idea of them. The prayer of simplicity is not to meditation what inactive is to action, though it might appear to be at times, but what uniformity is to variety and intuition to reasoning.

A soul is known to be called to one of these degrees when it succeeds therein, and does so with ease, and when it derives profit from it. The call of God becomes even clearer if this soul have first, a persistent attraction to this kind of prayer; second, a want of facility and distaste for meditation. Three rules of conduct for those who show these signs are admitted by all authors:

• When, during prayer, one feels neither a relish nor facility for certain acts one should not force oneself to produce them, but be content with affective prayer or the prayer of simplicity (which, by hypothesis, can succeed); to do otherwise would be to thwart Divine action.
• If, on the contrary, during prayer, one feels the facility for certain acts, one should yield to this inclination instead of obstinately striving to remain immovable like the Quietists. Indeed, even the full use of our faculties is not superfluous in helping us to reach God.
• Outside of prayer, properly so called, one should profit on all occasions either to get instruction or to arouse the will and thus make up what prayer itself may lack.

Many texts relative to the prayer of simplicity are found in the works of St. Jane de Chantal, who, together with St. Francis of Sales, founded the Order of the Visitation. She complained of the opposition that many well-disposed minds offered to this kind of prayer. By ancient writers the prayer of simplicity is called acquired, active, or ordinary contemplation. St. Alphonsus Liguori, echoing his predecessors, defines it thus: "At the end of a certain time ordinary meditation produces what is called acquired contemplation, which consists in seeing at a simple glance the truths which could previously be discovered only through prolonged discourse" (Homo apostolicus, Appendix I, No. 7).

Higher contemplation

To distinguish it from acquired contemplation mystical union is called intuitive, passive, extraordinary, or higher contemplation. St. Teresa designates it simply as contemplation, without any qualification. Mystical graces may be divided into two groups, according to the nature of the object contemplated. The states of the first group are characterized by the fact that it is God, and God only, who manifests Himself; these are called mystical union. In the second group the manifestation is of a created object, as, for example, when one beholds the humanity of Christ or an angel or a future event, etc. These are visions (of created things) and revelations. To these belong miraculous bodily phenomena which are sometimes observed in ecstatics.

There are four degrees or stages of mystical union. They are here taken just as St. Teresa has described them with the greatest clearness in her "Life" and principally in her "Interior Castle":

1. incomplete mystical union, or the prayer of quiet (from the Latin quies, quiet; which expresses the impression experienced in this state);
2. the full, or semi-ecstatic, union, which St. Teresa sometimes calls the prayer of union (in her "Life" she also makes use of the term entire union, entera unión, ch. xvii);
3. ecstatic union, or ecstasy; and
4. transforming or deifying union, or spiritual marriage (properly) of the soul with God.

The first three are states of the same grace, viz. the weak, medium, and the energetic. It will be seen that the transforming union differs from these specifically and not merely in intensity.

Mystical union

The preceding ideas may be more precisely stated by indicated the easily discernible lines of demarcation. Mystical union will be called

• spiritual quiet when the Divine action is still too weak to prevent distractions: in a word, when the imagination still retains a certain liberty;
• full union when its strength is so great that the soul is fully occupied with the Divine object, whilst, on the other hand, the senses continue to act (under these conditions, by makeing a greater or less effort, one can cease from prayer);
• ecstasy when communications with the external world are severed or nearly so (in this event one can no longer make voluntary movement nor energy from the state at will).

Between these well-defined types there are imperceptible transitions as between the colours blue, green, and yellow. Mystics use many other appellations: silence, supernatural sleep, spiritual inebriation, etc. These are not real degrees, but rather ways of being in the four preceding degrees. St. Teresa sometimes designates the weak prayer of quiet as supernatural recollection.

Transforming union

As regards transforming union, or spiritual marriage, it is here sufficient to say that it consists in the habitual consciousness of a mysterious grace which all shall possess in heaven: the anticipation of the Divine nature. The soul is conscious of the Divine assistance in its superior supernatural operations, those of the intellect and the will. Spiritual marriage differs from spiritual espousals inasmuch as the first of these states is permanent and the second only transitory.

CHARACTERS OF MYSTICAL UNION

The different states of mystical union possess twelve characters. The first two are the most important; the first because it denotes the basis of this grace, the other because it represents its physiognomy.

First character: The presence felt

(a) The real difference between mystical union and the recollection of ordinary prayer is that, in the former, God is not satisfied with helping us to think of Him and reminding us of that presence.

(b) However, in the lower degrees (spiritual quiet) God does this in a rather obscure way. The more elevated the order of the union the clearer the manifestation. The obscurity just mentioned is a source of interior suffering to beginners. During the period of spiritual quiet they instinctively believe in the preceding doctrine, but afterwards, because of their preconceived ideas, they begin to reason and relapse into hesitation and the fear of going astray. The remedy lies in providing them with a learned director or a book that treats these matters clearly. By experimental knowledge it is understood that which comes from the object itself and makes it known not only as possible but as existing, and in such and such conditions. This is the case with mystical union: God is therein perceived as well as conceived. Hence, in mystical union, we have experimental knowledge of God and of His presence, but it does not at all follow that this knowledge is of the same nature as the Beatific Vision. The angels, the souls of the departed, and devils know one another experimentally but in an inferior way to that in which God will be manifested to us in heaven. Theologians express this principle by saying that it is a knowledge by impressed or intelligible species.

Second character: Interior possession

(a) In states inferior to ecstasy one cannot say that he sees God, unless indeed in exceptional cases. Nor is one instinctively led to use the word see.

(b) On the contrary, what constitutes the common basis of all the degrees of mystical union is that the spiritual impression by which God manifests His presence makes that presence felt in the way of an interior something with which the soul is penetrated; it is a sensation of absorption, of fusion, of immersion.

(c) For the sake of greater clearness the sensation one experiences may be designated as interior touch. This very clear expression of spiritual sensation is used by Scaramelli (Directoire mystique, Tr. iii, no. 26) and had already been resorted to by Father de la Reguera (Praxis theologiae mysticae, vol. I, no. 735). The following comparison will aid us in forming an exact idea of the physiognomy of mystical union. We may say that it is in a precisely similar way that we feel the presence of our body when we remain perfectly immobile and close our eyes. If we know that our body is present, it is not because we see it or have been told of the fact. It is the result of a special sensation (coenaesthesis), an interior impression, very simple and yet impossible to analyse. Thus it is that in mystical union we feel God within us and in a very simple way. The soul absorbed in mystical union that is not too elevated may be said to resemble a man placed near one of his friends in an impenetrably dark place and in utter silence He neither sees nor hears his friend whose hand he holds within his own, but through means of touch, he feels his presence. He thus remains thinking of his friend and loving him, although amid distractions.

The foregoing statements concerning the first two characters always appear unquestionably true to those who have received mystical grace but, on the contrary, they are often a source of amazement to the profane. For those who will admit them, at least provisionally the difficulties of mystical union are overcome and what is to follow will not be very mysterious.

The ten characters remaining are the consequences or concomitants of the first two.

Third character

Mystical union cannot be produced at will. It is this character that was useful above in defining all mystical states. It may also be added that these states cannot be augmented nor their manner of being changed. By remaining immobile and being content with interior acts of the will one cannot cause these graces to cease. It will be seen farther on that the only means to this end lies in resuming bodily activity.

Fourth character

The knowledge of God in mystical union is obscure and confused; hence the expression to enter into Divine obscurity or into Divine darkness. In ecstasy one has intellectual visions of the Divinity, and the loftier these become, the more they surpass our understanding. Then is reached blinding contemplation, a mixture of light and darkness. The great darkness is the name given tot he contemplation of such Divine attributes are never shared by any creature, for instance, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc.

Fifth character

Like all else that borders on the Divine nature this mode of communication is only half comprehensible and it is called mystical because it indicates a mystery. This character and the preceding one are a source of anxiety to beginners, as they imagine that no state is Divine and certain unless they understand it perfectly and without anyone's help.

Sixth character

In mystical union the contemplation of God is produced neither by reasoning nor by the consideration of creatures nor still by interior images of the sensible order. We have seen that it has an altogether different cause. In the natural state our thinking is always accompanied by images, and it is the same in ordinary prayer, because supernatural operations of an ordinary character resemble those of nature. But in mystical contemplation a change takes place. St. John of the Cross is constantly reverting to this point. It has been said that the acts of the imagination are not the cause of the contemplation; however, they may at least accompany it. Most frequently it is in distractions that the imagination manifests itself, and St. Teresa declared that for this evil she found no remedy (Life, ch. xvii). We shall designate as constitutive acts of mystical union those which necessarily belong to this state, such as thinking of God, relishing Him and loving Him; and by way of distinction we shall denote as additional acts such acts, other than distractions, as are not proper to mystical union, that is to say, are neither its cause nor its consequences. This term indicates that an addition, whether voluntary or not, is made to Divine action. Thus, to recite a Hail Mary during spiritual quiet or to give oneself up to a consideration of death would be to perform additional acts, because they are not essential to the existence of spiritual quiet. These definitions will prove useful later on. But even now they will permit us to explain certain abbreviations of language, often indulged in by mystics, of which many erroneous interpretations have been made, misunderstanding having resulted from what was left unexpressed. Thus it has been said: "Often in supernatural prayer there are no more acts"; or "One must not fear therein to suppress all acts"; whereas what should have been said was this: "There are no more additional acts". Taken literally, these abridged phrases do not differ from those of the Quietists. St. Teresa was suddenly enlightened in her way of perfection by reading in a book this phrase, though it is inaccurate: "In spiritual quiet one can think of nothing" (Life, ch. xxiii). But others would not have discerned the true value of the expression. In like manner it was said: "The will only is united"; by which was meant that the mind adds no further reasoning and that thenceforth it makes itself forgotten or else that it retains the liberty of producing additional acts; then it seems as if it were not united. But in future these expressions that require long explanations will be avoided.

Seventh character

There are continual fluctuations. Mystical union does not retain the same degree of intensity for five minutes, buts its average intensity may be the same for a notable length of time.

Eighth character

Mystical union demands much less labour than meditation, and the more elevated the state the less the effort required, in ecstasy there being none whatever. St. Teresa compares the soul that progresses in these states to a gardener who takes less and less trouble to water his garden (Life, ch. xi). In the prayer of quiet the labour does not consist in procuring the prayer itself; God alone can give that, but first in combating distractions; second, in occasionally producing additional acts; third, if the quiet be weak, in suppressing the ennui caused by incomplete absorption which very often one is disinclined to perfect by something else.

Ninth character

Mystical union is accompanied by sentiments of love, tranquillity, and pleasure. In spiritual quiet these sentiments are not always very ardent although sometimes the reverse is the case and there is spiritual jubilation and inebriation.

Tenth character

Mystical union is accompanied, and often in a very visible manner, by an impulse towards the different virtues. This fact (which St. Teresa constantly repeats) is the more sensible in proportion as the prayer is more elevated. In private, far from leading to pride these graces always produce humility.

Eleventh character

Mystical union acts upon the body. This fact is evident in ecstasy (q.v.) and enters into its definition. First, in this state the senses have little or no action; second, the members of the body are usually motionless; third, respiration almost ceases; fourth, vital heat seems to disappear, especially from the extremities. In a word, all is as if the soul loses in vital force and motor activity all that it gains on the side of Divine union. The law of continuity shows us that these phenomena must occur, although in a lesser degree, in those states that are inferior to ecstasy. At what moment do they begin? Often during spiritual quiet, and this seems to be the case mainly with persons of weak temperament. Since this spiritual quiet is somewhat opposed to bodily movements the latter must react reciprocally in order to diminish this quiet. Experience confirms this conjecture. If one begins to walk read, or look to right and left, one feels the Divine action diminishing; therefore to resume bodily activity is a practical means of ending the mystical union.

Twelfth character

Mystical union to some extent hinders the production of some interior acts which, in ordinary prayer, could be produced at will. This is what is known as the suspension of the powers of the soul. In ecstasy this fact is most evident and is also experienced in actual quiet, one of those states inferior to ecstasy, being one of the phenomena that have most occupied mystics and been the cause of the greatest anxiety to beginners. Those acts which have been termed additional, and which would likewise be voluntary, are what are hampered by this suspension, hence it is usually an obstacle to vocal prayers and pious reflections.

To sum up: as a general rule, the mystical state has a tendency to exclude all that is foreign to it and especially whatever proceeds from our own assiduity, our own effort. Sometimes, however, God makes exceptions. Concerning suspension there are three rules of conduct identical with those already given for the prayer of simplicity (see above). If a director suspects that a person has attained unto the prayer of quiet he can most frequently decide the case by questioning him on the twelve characters just enumerated.

THE TWO NIGHTS OF THE SOUL

There is an intermediate state not yet mentioned, a frequent transition between ordinary prayer and spiritual quiet. St. John of the Cross, who was the first to describe it clearly, called it the night of sense or first night of the soul. If we abide by appearances, that is to say, by what we immediately observe in ourselves, this state is a prayer of simplicity but with characteristics, two especially, which make it a thing apart. It is bitter, and it is almost solely upon God that the simple gaze is incessantly riveted. Five elements are included in this distressing state: there is first, an habitual aridity; second, an undeveloped, confused idea of God, recurring with singular persistency and independently of the will; third, the sad and constant need of a closer union with God; fourth, a continual action of God's grace to detach us from all sensible things and impart a distaste for them, whence the name, "night of sense" (the soul may struggle against this action of grace); fifth, there is a hidden element which consists in this: God begins to exercise over the soul the action characteristic of the prayer of quiet, but He does it so gently that one may be unconscious of it. Hence it is spiritual quiet in the latent, disguised state, and it is only by verifying the analogy of effects that one comes to know it. St. John of the Cross speaks of the second night of the soul as the night of the mind. It is nothing more than union of the mystical states inferior to spiritual marriage but regarded as including the to spiritual marriage but regarded as including the element of gloom and therefore as producing suffering.

We can now form a compact idea of the development of mystical union in the soul. It is a tree the seed of which is first concealed in the earth and the roots that are secretly put forth in darkness constitute the night of sense. Fro these a frail stem springs up into the light and this is spiritual quiet. The tree grows and becomes successively full union and ecstasy. Finally, in spiritual marriage it attains the end of its development and then especially it bears flowers and fruit. This harmony existing between the states of mystical union is a fact of noteworthy importance.

REVELATIONS AND VISIONS (OF CREATURES)

There are three kinds of speech: exterior, which is received by the ear, and interior, which is subdivided into imaginative and intellectual. The last is a communication of thoughts without words.

There are three similar kinds of visions. Many details of these different graces will be found in the works of St. Teresa. What are known as private and particular revelations are those contained neither in the Bible nor in the deposit of Apostolic tradition. The Church does not oblige us to believe in them, but it is prudent not to reject them lightly when they are affirmed by saints. Nevertheless it is certain that many saints were deceived and that their revelations contradict one another. What follows will explain the reason of this. Revelations and visions are subject to many illusions which shall be briefly set forth. First, like Jonas at Ninive, the seer may regard as absolute a prediction that was only conditional, or commit some other error in interpreting it. Second, when the vision represents a scene from the life or Passion of Christ, historic accuracy is often only approximate; otherwise God would lower Himself to the rank of a professor of history and archeology. He wishes to sanctify the soul, not to satisfy our curiosity. The seer, however, may believe that the reproduction is exact; hence the want of agreement between revelations concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Third, during the vision personal activity may be so mingled with the Divine action that answers in the sense desired seemed to be received. In fact, during prayer vivid imaginations may go so far as to produce revelations and visions out of whole cloth without any evil intent. Fourth, sometimes, in his desire to explain it, the seer afterwards unconsciously alters a genuine revelation. Fifth, amanuenses and editors take deplorable liberties in revising, so that the text is not always authentic. Some revelations are even absolutely false because: first, in describing their prayer, certain persons lie most audaciously; second, amongst those afflicted with neuropathy there are inventors who, in perfectly good faith, imagine to be real facts things that have never occurred; third, the devil may to a certain degree, counterfeit Divine visions; fourth, amongst writers there are genuine forgers who are responsible for political prophecies, hence the profusion of absurd predictions.

Illusions in the matter of revelations often have a serious consequence, as they usually instigate to exterior acts, such as teaching a doctrine, propagating a new devotion, prophesying, launching into an enterprise that entails expense. There would be no evil to fear if these impulses came from God, but it is entirely otherwise when they do not come from God, which is much more frequently the case and is difficult of discernment. On the contrary there is naught to fear from mystical union. It impels solely towards Divine love and the practice of solid virtue. There would be equal security in the impossible supposition that the state of prayer was only an imitation of mystical union, for then the tendencies would be exactly the same. This supposition is called impossible because St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross keep repeating that the devil cannot imitate nor even understand mystical union. Neither can our mind and imagination reproduce the combination of the twelve characters described above.

What has been said shows us the importance of not confounding mystical union with revelations. Not only are these states of a different nature but they must also be differently estimated. Because ignorant of this distinction many persons fall into one of these two extremes: first, if they know the danger of revelations, they extend their severe judgment to mystical union and thus turn certain souls from an excellent path; second, if on the contrary, they are reasonably persuaded of the security and tranquillity of mystical union, they wrongly extend this favourable judgment to revelations and drive certain souls into a dangerous path.

When God so wills He can impart to him who receives a revelation the full certainty that is real and wholly Divine. Otherwise one would not have had the right to believe the Prophets of the Old Testament. Scripture ordained that they distinguished from false prophets. For instance, the envoys of God performed miracles or uttered prophecies the realization of which was verified. In order to judge private revelations in a more or less probable way, two kinds of information must be obtained. First, one should ascertain the qualities or defects, from a natural, ascetic, or mystical point of view, of the person having revelations. When the one in question has been canonized the investigation has already been made by the Church. Second, one should be acquainted with the qualities and defects of the revelation itself and with its various circumstances, favourable or otherwise. To judge of ecstasies one should be actuated by the same principles, the two chief points to settle being: first, in what the soul is absorbed whilst thus deprived of the senses, and whether it is captivated by knowledge of a higher order and transported by an immense love; second, what degree of virtue it possessed before reaching this state and what great progress it made afterwards. If the result of the investigation be favourable the probabilities are on the side of Divine ecstasy, as neither the devil nor disease can work the imagination up to this pitch.

There are several rules of conduct in connection with revelations but we shall give only the two most important.

The first relates to the director. If the revelation or the vision has for its sole effect the augmenting of the love of the seer for God, Christ, or the saints, nothing prevents these facts from being provisionally considered Divine; but if, on the contrary, the seer be impelled to certain undertakings or if he wish that his prediction should be firmly believed, he should be told: "You must admit that you cannot be believed simply upon your word, consequently give signs that your revelations come from God and from Him alone." As a rule this request remains unanswered. Note the prudence of the Church in regard to certain feasts of devotions which she has instituted in consequence of private revelations. The revelation was only the occasion of the measure taken. The Church declares that such a devotion is reasonable but she does not guarantee the revelation that suggested it.

The second rule concerns the seer. In the beginning, at least, he is gently to do his utmost to repulse the revelations and to turn his thoughts away from them. He is to accept them only after a prudent director will have decided that he may place a certain amount of confidence n them. This doctrine, which seems severe, is nevertheless taught forcibly by many saints, such as St. Ignatius (Acta SS., 31 July, Préliminaires, no. 614), St. Philip Neri (ibid., 26 May, 2nd life, no. 375), St. John of the Cross (Assent, Bk. II, ch. xi, xvi, xvii, and xxiv), St. Teresa, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Homo Apost., Appendix I, no. 23), for the reason that there is danger of illusions. With even greater reason, revelations and visions (of created objects) should be neither desired nor requested. On the other hand, many passages in St. Teresa and other mystics prove that mystical union may be desired and asked for, provided it be done humbly and with resignation to God's will. The reason is that this union has no disadvantages but presents great advantages for sanctification (see THEOLOGY, under sub-title Mystical).

St. Teresa far excels all writers that preceded her on the subject of contemplation. In their descriptions those prior to her confined themselves to generalities. Exception must be made in favour of Blessed Angela de Foligno, Ruysbroeck and the Venerable Marina d'Escobsar as regards the subject of ecstasies. St. Teresa was likewise the first to give a clear, accurate, and detailed classification. Before her time hardly anything was described except ecstasies and revelations. The lower degrees required ore delicate observation than had been devoted to them before her day. After St. Teresa the first place for careful observation of these matters belongs to St. John of the Cross. But his classifications are confused. St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross are also greatly superior to subsequent authors who have been satisfied to repeat them, with comments.

AUG. POULAIN

Contemplative Life

A life ordered in view of contemplation; a way of living especially adapted to lead to and facilitate contemplation, while it excludes all other preoccupations and intents. To seek to know and love God more and more is a duty incumbent on every Christian and should be his chief pursuit, and in this wide sense the Christian and the contemplative lives are synonymous. This duty, however, admits of various degrees in its fulfillment. Many give into it only a part of their time and attention, either from lack of piety or because of other duties; others attempt to blend harmoniously the contemplative life with active ministry, i.e. the care of souls, which, undertaken from a motive of supernatural charity, can be made compatible with the inner life. Others again, who have the will and the means, aim at accomplishing the duty of contemplation to the utmost perfection, and give up all occupations inconsistent with it, or which, on account of man's limited abilities, of their nature would impede it. The custom has prevailed of applying the term "contemplative" only to the life led by the latter.

Contemplation, the object of contemplative life, is defined as the complacent, loving gaze of the soul on Divine truth already known and apprehended by the intellect assisted and enlightened by Divine grace. This definition shows the two chief differences between the contemplation of the Christian ascetic and the merely scientific research of the theologian.

• The contemplative, in his investigation of Divine things, is actuated by love for those things, and to increase this love is his ultimate purpose, as well as the firstfruits of his contemplation; in other words the theological virtue of charity is the mainspring as well as the outcome of the act of contemplation.
• Again, the contemplative does not rely on the natural powers of his intellect in his endeavors to gain cognizance of the truth, but knowing that human reason is limited and weak, especially when inquiring into things supernatural, he seeks aid from above by prayer, and by the practice of all Christian virtues and strives to fit his soul for the grace he desires.

The act of contemplation, imperfect as it needs be, is of all human acts one of the most sublime, one of those which render the greatest honor to God, bring the greatest good to the soul, and enable it most efficaciously to become a means of salvation and manifold blessing to others. According to St. Bernard (De Consider., lib. I, c. vii), it is the highest form of human worship, as it is essentially an act of adoration and of utter self-surrender of man's whole being. The soul in contemplation is a soul lying prostrate before God, convinced of and confessing its own nothingness, and His worthiness to receive all love and glory and honor and blessings from those He has created. It is a soul lost in admiration and love of the Eternal Beauty, the sight of which though but a feeble reflection, fill it with a joy naught else in the world can give -- a joy which, far more eloquently than speech, testifies that the soul rates that Beauty above all other beauties, and finds in It the completion of all its desires. It is the jubilant worship of the whole heart, mind, and soul, the worship "in spirit and in truth" of the "true adorers", such as the Father seeks to adore Him (John, iv, 23). By contemplative life, however, is not meant a life passed entirely in contemplation. On earth an act of contemplation cannot be of long duration, except in the case of an extraordinary privilege granted by Divine power. The weakness of our bodily senses and the natural instability of our minds and hearts, together with the exigencies of life, render it impossible for us to fix our attention for long on one object. This is true with regard to earthly or material things; it is still more true in matters pertaining to the supernatural order. Only in Heaven shall the understanding be strengthened so as to waver no more, but adhere unceasingly to Him who made it.

Hence it is rare to find souls capable of leading a life of contemplation without occasionally engaging their mental or physical activity in earthy or material things. The combination, of the two lives, of which Catholic hagiology affords such striking and glorious examples, is, as a general rule, and for persons of ordinary attainments, a matter of considerable difficulty. Exterior action, with the solicitude and cares attendant on it, tends naturally to absorb the attention; the soul is thereby hampered in its efforts to ascend to the higher regions of contemplation, as its energy, capacity, and power of application are usually too limited to allow it to carry on together such different pursuits with success. If this is true with regard to those even who are working for God and are engaged in enterprises undertaken for the furtherance of His interests, it is all the more true of those who are toiling with no other direct end than to procure their subsistence and their temporal well-being. This is why those who have wished to give themselves up to contemplation and reach an eminent degree of mystical union with God have habitually withdrawn from the crowd and have abandoned all other pursuits, to lead a retired life entirely consecrated to the purpose of contemplation. It is evident that such a life can be led nowhere so safely and so easily as in those monastic orders which make it their special object. The rules of those orders supply their members with every means necessary and useful for the purpose, and safeguard them from all exterior obstacles. Foremost among these means must be reckoned the vows, which are great barriers raised against the inroads of the three great evils devastating the world (I John, ii, 16). Poverty frees the contemplative from the cares inherent to the possession and administration of temporal goods, from the moral dangers that follow in the wake of wealth, and from that insatiable greed for gain which so lowers and materializes the mind. Chastity frees him from the bondage of married life with its solicitude so "dividing" to the heart and mind, to use the Apostle's expression (I Cor., vii, 33), and so apt to confine man's sympathy and action within a narrow circle. By the same virtue also he obtains that cleanness of heart which enables him to see God (Matth., v, 8). Obedience, without which community-life is impossible, frees him from the anxiety of having to determine what course to take amidst the ever-shifting circumstances of life. The stability which the vow gives to the contemplative's purpose by placing him in a fixed state with set duties and obligations is also an inestimable advantage, as it saves him from natural inconsistency, the blight of so many undertakings.

Silence is of course the proper element of the contemplative soul, since to converse with God and men at the same time is hardly possible. Moreover, conversing unnecessarily is apt to give rise to numberless thoughts, fancies, and desires alien to the duties and purpose of contemplative life, which assail the soul at the hour of prayer and distract it from God. It is no wonder, then, that monastic legislators and guardians of regular discipline should always have laid such stress on the enforcing of silence, strenuously enforcing its observance and punishing transgression with special severity. This silence, if not perpetual, must embrace at least the greatest part of the contemplative's life. Solitude is the home of silence, and its surest safeguard. Moreover, it cuts to the root of one of the strongest of man's selfish propensities, the desire to make a figure before the world, to win admiration and applause, or at least to attract attention, to be thought and spoken of. "Manifest thyself to the world" (John, vii, 4) says the demon of vainglory; but the Spirit of God holds another language (Matt., vi). Solitude may be twofold: the seclusion of the cloister, which implies restriction of intercourse with the outer world; and the eremitic confinement of the cell, a practice which varies in different orders.

Religious life, being essentially a life of self-denial and self-sacrifice, must provide an effectual antidote to every form of self-seeking, and the rules of contemplative orders especially are admirably framed so as to thwart and mortify every selfish instinct; vigils, fasts, austerity in food, clothing, etc., and often manual labour tame the flesh, and thus help the soul to keep in subjection its worst enemy. Contemplatives, in short, forego many transient pleasures, many satisfactions sweet to nature, all that the world holds most dear; but they gain in return a liberty for the soul which enables it to rise without hindrance to the thought and love of God. Though God Himself is the chief object and study of their meditation, He is not the only one. His works, His dealings with men, all that reveals Him in the province of grace or of nature is lawfully open to the contemplative's investigation. The development of the Divine plan in the growth of the Church and in the history of nations, the wondrous workings of grace and the guidance of Providence in the lives of individual souls, the marvels and beauty of creation, the writings of the saints and sages of Christendom, and above all, the Holy Scriptures form an inexhaustible storehouse, whence the contemplative can draw food for contemplation.

The great function assumed by contemplatives, as has already been said, is the worship of God. When living in community, they perform this sacred office in a public, official way, assembling at stated hours of the day and night to offer to the Almighty "the sacrifice of Praise" (Psalm. xlix, 14, 23; see Office, Divine). Their chief work then is what St. Benedict (Rule, xliii) Call emphatically God's work (opus Dei), i.e. the solemn chanting of Divine praise, in which the tongue gives utterance to he admiration of the intellect and to the love of the heart. And this is done in the name of the Church and of all mankind. Not only does contemplation glorify God, but it is most beneficial to the soul itself. Nothing brings the soul into such close union with God, and union with God is the source of all saintliness. Never so well as when contemplating the perfections of God and the grandeur of His works does man see his own imperfections and failings, the vileness of sin, and the paltriness and futility of so many of his labours and undertakings; and thus nothing so grounds him in humility, the prop and the bulwark of every other virtue.

Love for God necessarily breeds love for our fellow-men, all children of the same Father; and the two loves keep pace with each other in their growth. Hence it follows that contemplative life is eminently conducive to increase of charity for others. The heart is enlarged, affection is deepened, sympathy becomes more keen, because the mind is enlightened as to the worth of an immortal soul in God's eyes. And although of the two great commandments given by Christ (Matt., xxii, 37 sqq.) -- love of God and love for our neighbor -- the first is exemplified more markedly in contemplative orders, and the second in active orders, contemplatives must and do have in their hearts a strong and true love for others, but they realize that love in their deeds. The principal means contemplatives have of proving their love for others are prayer and penance. By prayer they draw down from Heaven on struggling and suffering humanity manifold graces, light, strength, courage and comfort, blessings for time and for eternity. By penance they strive to atone for the offenses of sinful humanity, to appease God's wrath and ward off its direful effects, by giving vicarious satisfaction to the demands of His justice. Their lives of perpetual abnegation and privation, of hardship cheerfully endured, of self-inflicted suffering, joined to the sufferings of their Divine Master and Model help to repair the evil men do and obtain God's mercy for the evildoers. They plead and make reparation for all men. This twofold ministry carried on within the narrow precincts of a monastery knows no other limits to its effects than the bounds of earth and the needs of mankind. Or rather that ministry extends further still its sphere of action, for the dead as well as the living benefit by it. (See also MONASTICISM).

ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. clxxix-clxxxii; SUAREZ, Tract. de Oratione, lib II, c, ix sqq; IDEM, De varietate religionum, lib., I, c.v, vi; DENYS THE CARTHUSIAN, De contemplatione; La vie contemplative: son role apostolique (Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1898); DIVINE, Manual of Mystical Theology (London, 1903).

EDMUND GURDON

Vincent Contenson

Dominican theologian and preacher, born at Altivillare (Gers), Diocese of Condon, France, 1641; died Creil-sur-Oise, 26 December, 1674. His epitaph in the church of that place described him as "in years a youth, mature in wisdom and in virtue venerable". Despite his short life, he gave proof in his writings of considerable learning and won remarkable popularity by his pulpit utterances. He was seventeen years old when he entered the Order of Preachers. After teaching philosophy for a time at Albi, and theology at Toulouse, he began a career of preaching as brilliant as it was brief. He was stricken in the pulpit at Creil, where he was giving a mission. His reputation as a theologian rests on a work entitled "Theologia Mentis et Cordis", published posthumously at Lyons in nine volumes, 1681; second edition, 1687. His life is found in the fifth volume of the "Histoire des hommes illustres de l'ordre de Saint Dominique", by Père Touron. The peculiar merit of his theology consists in an attempt to get away from the prevailing dry reasoning of Scholasticism and, while retaining the accuracy and solidity of its method, to embellish it with illustrations and images borrowed from the Fathers, that appeal to the heart as well as the mind. This pious and learned compilation has not yet lost its value and utility for students and preachers.

ROSE. New Gen. Biogr. Dict. (London, 1848); MORERI, Gr. Dict. Hist. (Paris, 1759). JOHN H. STAPLETON

Continence

Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, though Aristotle did not accord it this high character since it involved a conflict with wrong desires--an element, in the mind of the philosopher, foreign to the content of a virtue in the strict sense. Continence, it is seen, has a more restricted significance than chastity, since the latter finds place in the condition of marriage. The abstinence we are discussing, then, belongs to the state of celibacy, though clearly the notion of this latter does not necessarily involve that of continence.

Practice

In considering its practice we regard continence as a state of life. Though among savages and barbarians every one, as a rule, seeks to contract an early marriage, yet even among these peoples continence is frequently practiced by those who discharge the public duties of religion. Thus according to authorities cited by Westmarck, the male wizards of Patagonia embraced a life of continence, as did the priests of the Mosquito Islands and of ancient Mexico. According to Chinese law such condition of abstinence is made obligatory upon all priests, Buddhist or Taoist. Among the Greeks continence was required of several orders of priests and priestesses, as it was of the vestals among the Romans. The continence extensively observed among the Essenes, the Manichaeans, and some of the Gnostics, though not confined to a priestly class, was reckoned the means to a greater sanctification. Such widespread practice offers evidence of an instinctive feeling that the indulgence of our sensual nature is in a measure degrading, and that it is particularly incompatible with the perfect purity that should characterize one consecrated to the worship of the All Holy. That the attitude of a number of sects towards the lower side of human nature has taken on a character of unreasonable, and even absurd, severity is clear. This is observed especially in the case of the Manichaeans and branches of the Gnostics in the past and of the Shakers and other unimportant communities in our time. The law of the Catholic Church imposing a state of continence upon its ministers and upon its religious orders of men and women is set forth in the articles CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY; RELIGIOUS LIFE; and VIRGINITY.

Two general objections are frequently urged against the state of continence. First, it is said that the condition of continence is detrimental to the well-being of the individual. In such a statement, it will be frequently found, continence is understood as an unchaste celibacy, and such surely is not only a moral but a physical evil most pernicious. Certain it is, however, that the self-sacrifice and control involved in true continence finds fruitage in a greater measure of moral power. The words of Jesus Christ (Matt., xix, 12) may be here appealed to. Moreover, the abstinence of which we speak is a condition of increased physical vigor and energy. Of this many savages are not unmindful; for among a number of these continence is imposed upon the braves during times of war as a means of fostering and strengthening their daring and courage. A second objection rests upon considerations of the social good. It is contended that a state of continence means failure to discharge the social obligation of conserving the species. But such an obligation falls, not upon every member of the community, but upon society at large, and is amply discharged though there be individual exceptions. Indeed the non-fulfillment of this duty is never threatened by a too general observance of sexual abstinence. On the contrary it is only the unlawful gratification of carnal passion that can menace the due growth of population. But it may be said that the practice of continence withdraws form the function of reproduction the worthier members of society-those whose possible offspring would be the most desirable citizens of the State. This contention, however, overlooks the social service of the example set by such observance-a service which, in view of the duty incumbent upon every individual of society of observing absolute chastity for periods of greater or less duration, is of highest value.

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

Contingent

(Lat. contingere, to happen)

Aside from its secondary and more obvious meaning (as, for instance, its qualification of the predicable accident, of a class of modal propositions, and so on), the primary and technically philosophical use of the term is for one of the supreme divisions of being, that is, contingent being, as distinguished from necessary being. In this connexion the meaning of the term may be considered objectively, and the genesis of the idea subjectively.

Objectively

Objectively (ontologically) the contingent may be viewed:

• (1) in the purely ideal or possible order, and it is then the conceptual note or notes between which and existence in the actual order there is no contradiction, and which consequently admits of, though it does not demand, actualization. It is thus coextensive with possible being and is called the absolutely contingent.
• (2) Considered in the order of actual existence, the contingent is that being whose essence, as such, does not include existence and which, therefore, does not, as such, demand existence but is indifferent to be or not to be. This is called relatively contingent and the term is usually employed in this sense. Every finite existent being is thus contingent, though likewise hypothetically necessary, in that having existence it cannot at the same time and under the same aspect not have it; inasmuch, too, as it is determined by proximately, and hence relatively, necessitated antecedents.
• (3) In regard to its subject — be this substance or accident — contingency may relate to action as well as to existence, and it then signifies that the subject (agent) is as yet undetermined, either intrinsically, as in the free agent, or extrinsically, as are necessitated causes.
• (4) Since the essence of the contingent does not contain the reason of its existence, that reason must be sought in an outside efficient cause, which cause, if in turn contingent, must show reason for its existence in some other antecedent cause, and so on until ultimately a being is reached whose essence includes existence, a first cause whose existence is underived, a being which is necessary and absolute.

This argument from contingent to the necessary being is not, as Kant maintained, the well-known ontological argument formulated by St. Anselm and others to prove the existence of God. The latter argument passes illogically from the ideal concept of the infinite to the objective actual existence of the infinite, while the argument from contingent (finite) to the necessary (infinite) being, proceeds from the objective actual contingent (dependent, conditioned) to the existence of an adequate cause thereof. The inference is based on an objective application of the principle of causality and involves no leap from a subjective phenomenon (idea) to an objective realized content. The argument supposes, it is true, the real existence of contingent being and that existence is denied by many thinkers, notably by pantheists. materialists, and determinists generally. Kant reduces both contingency and necessity to mere mental forms or categories under which the mind views the world of phenomena but which it has no means of knowing to be objective. Necessary being, therefore, ontologically and objectively precedes the contingent, since the latter has the sole ultimate reason both of its intrinsic consistency (possibility) and of its actual existence in the former — actus absolute prœcedit potentiam. In the order, however, of man's knowledge, the contingent falls primarily under experience.

Subjectively

Like every other concept, that of the contingent is originally derived from external and internal experience. Adverting to the changes occurring in the world of sensuous phenomena and to the interdependencies thereof, the intellect easily, almost intuitively, discerns that, while the given events are the necessitated consequences of similarly necessitated antecedents, each number of the series, by the very fact of its being thus conditioned, does not contain within itself the adequate ground of its existence. The intellect having spontaneously abstracted this note of dependence and ontologically reflecting thereon sees its application to every finite subject not only existent but likewise possible; sees, at least by an easy process of reasoning, that no such subject contains within itself the reason why it exists, under the precise limitations of substance and accidents which it actually possesses. However, to assure this concept and to discern precisely and explicitly the contingency of the finite and the consequent indifference of its essence to exist or not to exist, the sciences, physical and biological, are called to testify; and each declares the dependence and conditionality of its respective object-sphere and attests that all things observed and searched into have a borrowed existence. This idea of contingency is then further assured by the witness of consciousness to the conditioned, and hence contingent, character of its own states, a testimony which is reconfirmed by the facts of birth and death.

Against this statement of the genesis of the contingency-concept it may be objected that experience does not extend beyond the field of sensuous phenomena. On the other hand, however, the intellect, motived by the principle of sufficient reason, discerns the underlying noumenon, or essence of things material, Kant to the contrary notwithstanding, at least sufficiently to pronounce with certitude on their essential conditionateness and contingency. But it is urged by materialistic monists that the underlying substrate of the sensuous world is one homogeneous, eternal, necessary being, essentially involving existence. To this objection it may be answered that no finite thing, much less a finite material being, can contain the ultimate reason of its existence. The definite limitations, spatial, integral, positional, etc., and the inertia of the hypothetical primordial matter shows that it is conditioned by some limiting and determining cause, while its passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous state, into which it is supposed to have evolved in the actual universe, equally demands an extraneous active agency. It should, however, be noted that the argument from contingent to necessary being does not explicitly prove the existence of God. A further analysis of the objective concept is necessarily required in order to show that the latter concept includes that of underivedness (aseitas) and that this in turn includes completeness, absence of any potentiality for further perfection (actus purus), hence infinitude. The failure to note this limitation of the argument seems to have led Kant to deny its validity.

BALMES, Fundamental Philosophy (New York, 1864); DRISCOLL, Christian Philosophy — God (New York, 1904); AVELING, The God of Philosophy (St. Louis and London, 1906); EISLER, Würterbuch der phil. Begriffe (Berlin, 1904); BLANC, Dictionnaire de philosophie (Paris, 1906); URRABURU, Institutiones Phil. (Valladolid, 1899).

F. P. SIEGFRIED.

Contract

(Latin contractus; Old French contract; Modern French contrat; Italian contratto).

I. THE CANONICAL AND MORALIST DOCTRINE

The canonical and moralist doctrine on this subject is a development of that contained in the Roman civil law. In Roman law a mere agreement between two parties to give, do, or refrain from doing something was a nude pact (pactum nudum) which gave rise to no civil obligation, and no action lay to enforce it. It needed to be clothed in some investitive fact which the law recognized in order to give rise to a civil obligation which should be enforced at law. Not that the nude pact was considered to be destitute of all binding force; it gave rise to a natural obligation, and it might afford ground for a legal exception. A man of honour would keep his engagements even if he knew that the law could not be invoked to compel him to do so. Moral theology, being the science of Christian conduct, could not be satisfied with the mere legal view of the effect of an agreement. If the agreement had all other requisites for a valid contract, moral theology must necessarily consider it to be binding, even though it was a nude pact and could not be enforced in the courts of law. Canon law made this moral attitude its own. In the Decretals of Gregory IX it is expressly laid down that pacts, however nude, must be kept, and that a strenuous endeavour must be made to put in execution what one has promised. It thus came to pass that nude pacts could be enforced in the Christian courts, and the Church's legislation served eventually to break down the rigid formalism of Roman law, and to prepare the way for the more equitable law of contract which all Christian nations now possess.

In the canonical and moral doctrine there is hardly room for the distinction between a nude pact, or mere agreement, and a contract. The Roman jurist's definition of the former is frequently used by canonists to define contract. They say that a contract is the consent of two or more persons to the same proposal; or, bringing out a little more definitely the effect and object of a contract, they define it to be an agreement by which two or more persons mutually bind themselves to give, do, or abstain from something. From the moralist's point of view, then, every agreement seriously entered into by those who are capable of contracting with reference to some lawful object is a contract, whether such agreement can be enforced in the civil courts or not. The intention of the parties is looked at, and if they seriously intended to bind themselves, there is a contractual relation between them. This doctrine, however, gives rise to a question of some importance. The Church fully admits and defends the right of the State to make laws for the temporal well-being of its citizens. All States require certain formalities for the validity of certain actions. Last wills and testaments are a familiar example, and although they are not strictly contracts, yet the principle is the same and they will serve for an example of what is meant. A deed, the only formal contract of English law, is another example. A will destitute of the requisite formalities is null and void at law; but what is the effect of such a voiding law in the forum of conscience? This question has been much debated among moralists. Some have maintained that such a law is binding in the internal as well as in the external forum, so that a formal contract, destitute of the formalities required by law, is null and void in conscience as it is in law. Others adopted the contrary opinion, and held that the want of formality only affected the external forum of civil law, and left intact the natural obligation arising from a contract. The common opinion takes a middle course. It holds that the want of formality, though it makes the contract void in the eyes of the law, renders it only voidable in the forum of conscience; so that, until one of the parties moves to set the contract aside, it remains valid, and anyone deriving benefit under it may enjoy his benefit in peace. If, however, the party interested moves to set it aside, and does so effectively by having recourse to the court of law if necessary, both must then abide by the law which makes the contract void and of no effect.

There are four essential elements in a contract:

• consent of the parties,
• contractual capacity in them,
• determinate and lawful subject-matter, and
• a lawful consideration.

The contract is formed by the mutual consent of the parties, which must be real, not feigned, and manifested so that each may know that the other party consents. There is no difficulty about the outward manifestation of consent when the parties enter into the contract in each other's presence. But when the parties are not present to each other, and the contract is made by letter or telegraph, it sometimes becomes a question of importance as to when and how the contract is effected. Is the contract entered into when the offeree signifies his consent by posting a letter of acceptance to the offeror, or is the knowledge of his acceptance required to complete the contract? All that is required by the nature of a contract is that there should be mutually manifested agreement of the two wills. There will be such agreement when one of the parties makes an offer to the other, and this one manifests his acceptance of the offer by posting a letter or by sending a telegram. There is then consent of two wills to the proposal, and so there is a contract. Mutual consent to the same proposal may be hindered by a mistake of one of the parties. Such mistakes are not infrequently caused by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party. If the mistake is substantial, so that at least one of the parties thinks that the subject-matter of the contract is quite other than it really is, there will be no true consent, and no contract. Similarly, if there be a mistake about the nature of the contract proposed (as, if one party intends to sell while the other only means to borrow) there is no agreement of wills. Mistake about the mere quality of the subject-matter of the contract is accidental, not substantial, and in spite of it there may be substantial agreement between the parties. If, however, such a mistake has been caused by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party to the contract, and the party deceived would not otherwise have entered into it, it is only fair that the deceived party should be able to protect himself from injury by retiring from the agreement. Contracts, then, entered into because of accidental mistake which was induced by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other party, will be rescindable at the option of the party deceived.

The consent of the parties must be deliberate and free, for a perfect and grave obligation cannot arise from consent which is not deliberate or free. Hence we must see what the influence of fear is upon the validity of a contract. If the fear goes to the length of depriving one of the parties of the use of reason, he cannot, while in that state, give a valid consent, and the contract will be null and void. Fear, however, does not ordinarily produce such extreme effects; it leaves a man with the natural use of his reason and capable of consenting or withholding his consent. Even grave fear, then, does not of itself invalidate a contract, but if it is unjustly caused by the other party to the contract with a view to forcing him who is under its influence to consent, the injured party may withdraw from the contract. Some contracts, such as marriage, thus entered into under the influence of grave fear unjustly caused by the other party to the contract with the intention of compelling consent, are made invalid by canon law. Some authorities even hold that all such contracts are invalid by natural law, but the opinion is at most only probable. A person must have the use of reason in order to give valid consent to a contract, and his contractual capacity must not have been taken away by law. Those who have not yet attained the use of reason, imbeciles, and those who are perfectly drunk so that they do not know what they are doing, are incapable of contracting by the law of nature. Minors are to a certain extent restricted in their contractual capacity by English and American law. Practically, their contracts are voidable except those for necessaries. Married women were formerly incapable of entering into a valid contract, but in England since 1882 their disability has been removed, and in most of the States of the Union the same doctrine begins to prevail. Religious persons are to a greater or less extent, according as they are under solemn or simple vows, incapable of entering into a binding contract. Corporations and companies are limited in their contractual capacity by their nature or by the articles of association.

The subject-matter of a contract must be definite and certain, it must be possible, and it must be honest. A contract cannot be a bond of iniquity, and so an agreement to commit sin is null and void. Some theologians maintain that when, in execution of a contract, a sinful action has been performed, a right is acquired to receive the price agreed upon. The opinion seems at any rate probable. If the contract is not sinful in itself, but voided by positive law, it will be valid until it is set aside by the party interested, as was said above concerning informal contracts. When persons enter into a contract, each party promises to give, do, or forbear something in favour of the other. The benefit which thus immediately arises from the contract, and which is the cause of it, is called the consideration in English law. It is a necessary element in a contract, and if it is wanting the contract is null on account of the failure of a necessary condition in the agreement. The courts of civil law will not enforce a simple contract unless there be a valuable consideration in it; mere motives of affection or moral duty will not suffice. This rule, however, only affects legal obligations; it has nothing to do with obligations in conscience. A valid contract imposes on the contracting parties an obligation of justice to act conscientiously according to the terms of the agreement. They will be bound to perform not only what they expressly agreed to do, but whatever the law, or custom, or usage prescribes in the circumstances. The obligation arising from a contract will cease when the contract has been executed, when a new one has been substituted for the old one by the free consent of the parties, when the parties mutually and freely withdraw from the contract. When one of the parties fails in what he promised, the other will, as a rule, be free. A contract may be concluded not absolutely but conditionally on the happening of some uncertain and future event. In this case the conditional contract imposes on the parties the obligation of waiting for the event, and in case it happens the contract becomes binding on them without renewal of consent. On the other hand, a contract is sometimes entered into and begins to bind at once; but the parties agree that it shall cease to bind on the happening of a certain event. This is called a condition subsequent, while the former is a condition precedent.

II. IN CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE

In civil law, a contract is defined as the union of several persons in a coincident expression of will by which their legal relations are determined. This "co-incident expression" consists of an agreement and promise enforceable in law, and "on the face of the matter capable of having legal effects", "an act in the law" "whereby two or more persons capable of contracting", "of doing acts in the law", "declare their consent as to any act or thing to be done or forborne by some or one of those persons for the use of the others or other of them" (Pollock, "Principles of Contract", 3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1906, 58, 1, 2, 3), the intention implied by the consent being that from the agreement and promise shall arise "duties and rights which can be dealt with by a court of justice" (ibid.). Thus, while every contract is an agreement, not every agreement is a contract. A mutual consent of two persons to walk out together, or to dine together, would be an agreement, and yet not what in jurisprudence is known as a contract. For such consent contemplates the producing of no legal right, or of any duty which is a legal obligation. Subject only to these or similar explanations may be properly adopted the time-honoured definition of contract as understood in English law, a definition commended by Chancellor Kent ("Commentaries on American Law", II, 449, note b) for its "neatness and precision", namely, "an agreement of two or more persons upon sufficient consideration to do or not to do a particular thing".

Kinds of Contract

The Roman civil law defined contracts as real (re), verbal (verbis), literal (litteris), or consensual (consensu). A real contract was one, such as loan or pledge, which was not perfected until something had passed from one of the parties to the other. A verbal contract (verborum obligatio), or stipulation, was perfected by a spoken formula. This formula consisted of a question by one of the parties and an exactly corresponding answer by the other. Thus: Quinque aureos mihi dare spondes? Spondeo, or Promittis? Promitto, i.e. "Do you agree (or promise) to give me five pieces of gold?" "I agree," or "I promise." The similarity may be noted of this to the modern form for administering an affidavit or for taking the acknowledgment of a written legal instrument. A literal contract was perfected by a written acknowledgment of debt and was used chiefly in the instance of a loan of money. Consensual contracts were those of which sale would be an example, which might be perfected by consent, and to which no particular form was essential. In the English law the principal division of contracts is into those by writing under seal (called specialties), and those known as simple contracts; and there are also "contracts by matter of record", such as a recognizance or judgment by confession, contracts in court, which need no further description. Simple contracts include all contracts written, but not under seal or of record, and all verbal contracts.

A person may contract in person or by an agent. "The tendency of modern times", remarks Holland (op. cit., 118), "is towards the fullest recognition of the principles proclaimed in the canon law, potest quis per alium quod potest facere per se ipsum, qui facit per alium est perinde ac si faciat per se ipsum," i.e. one may do through another whatever one is free to do by himself, or an act done through another is equivalent to an act done by oneself.

Requisites of Contract

According to Roman law, such a contract as that of sale required a justa causa, namely, a good legal reason. According to English law, simple contracts require a valuable consideration, in like manner as by Roman law there was needed a justa causa. By that law, informal contracts which had no justa causa were ineffectual (Poste, op. cit., 334). Stipulations irregular in form were termed nuda pacta, i. e. mere agreements, to which the ancient law attached no obligation. The Roman jurisprudence let some engagements rest on the mere integrity of the parties who contracted them, thinking it more conducive to the cultivation of virtue to leave some things to the good faith and probity of mankind than to subject everything to the compulsory authority of the law.

As the civil-law jurist admitted the moral obligation of good faith and probity, so an eminent English judge concedes that "by the law of nature" every man ought to fulfil his engagements. But it is equally true", he continues, "that the law of this country supplies no means nor affords any remedy to compel the performance of any agreement made without sufficient consideration." "Such agreement", he adds, "is nudum pactum ex quo non oritur actio", a mere agreement giving rise to no action at law, the learned judge conceding that this understanding of the maxim may (as it certainly does) differ from its sense in the Roman law. A moral consideration has been said to be "nothing in law." The moral obligation of a contract is of "an imperfect kind", to quote an eminent American jurist, "addressed to the conscience of the parties under the solemn admonitions of accountability to the Supreme Being" (Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", 5th ed., Boston, 1891, Section 1380), but not to an earthly court of justice. With these doctrines of the Roman and of the English law we may compare the Scottish law, according to which no consideration is essential to a legal obligation, "an obligation undertaken deliberately though gratuitously being binding". "This", adds Mackenzie (op. cit., 233) "is in conformity with the canon law by which every paction produceth action et omne verbum de ore fideli cadit in debitum", i.e. every word of a faithful man is equivalent to a debt.

In the Roman law, fulfilment of the legal solemnities of the verbal contract was deemed to indicate such an intention of contracting a valid and effectual obligation, as to dispense with proof of any justa causa. In the English law it is not any verbal formality, but the solemnity of writing and sealing which dispenses with proof of that valuable consideration in modern English law analogous to the old Roman justa causa, and, as a general proposition, essential to the validity of simple contracts, although in the exceptional instance of negotiable paper always presumed, and in favour of certain holders conclusively. This consideration is described generally as the matter accepted or agreed upon as the equivalent for which the promise is made. And one promise would be a legal consideration for another. But the English law infers what a man chooses to bargain for to be of some value to him, and therefore does not allow the adequacy of the consideration to be inquired into. The consideration must, however, "be of some value in contemplation of law". A promise, for instance, to abstain from doing what the promisor has no right to do, is a promise of no value, and therefore no consideration for a contract. No obligation can by English law result from an agreement "immoral in a legal sense". By this is meant not only that it is morally wrong, but that according to the common understanding of reasonable men it would be a scandal for a court of justice to treat it as lawful or indifferent, though it may not come within any positive prohibition or penalty. The civil-law authority, Pothier, instances a promise by an officer to pay a soldier for fighting "a soldier of another regiment". If the officer pay, he has no legal claim for recovery of this consideration given and received for a wrongful act, and, on the other hand, the soldier, if he fight before receiving the agreed consideration, acquires no legal claim for it against the officer (Pothier, op. cit., 23). No one is under a legal duty to fulfil a promise to do an act opposed to the policy of the law. But there are not wanting instances of contracts opposed to the policy of the law which yet conflict with no moral law.

A contract induced by what in law is deemed to be fraud may be rescinded at the election of the party defrauded. But "general fraudulent conduct", or "general dishonesty of purpose", or mere "intention and design to deceive" is not sufficient unless these evil acts and qualities have been connected with a particular transaction, were the ground on which it took place, and gave rise to the contract. In the instance of a sale, the seller was, by the Roman civil law, held to an implied warranty that the thing sold was "free from such defects as made it unfit for the use for which it was intended" (Mackenzie, op. cit., 236). By the English law there is, if the thing be sold for a fair price and be at the time of sale in the possession of the seller, an implied warranty of title, but of quality there is no implied warranty, except as to food sold for domestic use. "The writers of the moral law," observes Chancellor Kent, "hold it to be the duty of the seller to disclose the defects which are within his knowledge. But the common law is not quite so strict. If the defects in the article sold be open equally to the observation of both parties, the law does not require the vendor to aid and assist the observation of the vendee" (Kent, op. cit., II, 484).

Respecting what may be termed generally "motives and inducements" (ibid., 487) of a contract, the same authority cites Pothier as in accord with the doctrine of English law, "that though misrepresentation or fraud will invalidate the contract of sale, the mere concealment of material knowledge which the one party has touching the thing sold and which the other does not possess, may affect the conscience, but will not destroy the contract, for that would unduly restrict the freedom of commerce; and parties must at their own risk inform themselves of the commodities they deal in" (op. cit., 491). In a note, Cicero is referred to as favouring the view that conscience forbids the concealment, the commentator adding, "It is a little singular, however, that some of the best ethical writers, under the Christian Dispensation should complain of the moral lessons of Cicero, as being too austere in their texture, and too sublime in speculation for actual use" (ibid., note d). As fraud, so coercion, termed in English law duress, or the threat of it, constitutes a valid defense to fulfilment of a contract.

Statutory Restrictions

A certain French ordonnance of 1667 has been thought to have, perhaps, suggested the English statute of 1689, which recites its purpose to be "prevention of many fraudulent practices which are commonly endeavoured to be upheld by perjury and subornation of perjury". Accordingly, the statute requires that certain contracts be in writing, and those for sales of "goods, wares or merchandise of over ten pounds price" in writing, or that there be a part-delivery or part-payment. This enactment, known as the Statute of Frauds, has, with numerous variations, been embodied in statutes in the United States (except in Louisiana), carrying, to quote from the American commentator, "its influence through the whole body of our civil jurisprudence" (Kent, op. cit., 494, note a).

By the early Roman law many contracts were enforceable by legal action after any lapse of time however long. But, to quote the Institutes, "Sacrae constitutiones....actionibus certos fines dederunt" (the imperial constitutions assigned fixed limits to actions), so that, after certain prescribed periods, no legal remedy would be provided to enforce the obligation of contracts ("The Institutes of Justinian", Bk. IV, tit. xii; Bk. II, tit. vi). Such positive restrictions on the legal remedy are in English law contained in enactments known as Statutes of Limitation (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. III, 307). One ancient English statute fixed for limitation of certain actions the time of the coming of King John from Ireland, another statute the coronation of Henry III (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. III, 188). But modern statutes, as well in England as throughout the United States, limit the remedy to certain periods from the time of entering into contracts, adopting the manner of the Roman constitutions. The legal maxim Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt (the laws aid the vigilant, not the careless) is applicable to private suitors (Blackstone, op. cit.). But nullum tempos occurrit regi (no time runs against the king), and therefore, unless specially mentioned, the government is not included within the restrictions of a statute of limitations. According to ancient English legal conceptions these statutes ought not to bind the king, for the reason that he "is always busied for the public good, and therefore has not leisure to assert his right within the times limited to subjects" (ibid., Bk. I, 247).

Inviolability of Contracts

To secure inviolability of contracts, the Constitution of the United States (Art. 1, Sect. 10) provides that no State shall pass a "law impairing the obligation of contracts". By obligation is meant that legal obligation which exists "wherever the municipal law recognizes an absolute duty to perform a contract". And the word contract being used in this clause of the Constitution without qualification, the protection of the Constitution is not confined to executory contracts, but embraces also executed contracts, such as a grant which, because it amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the party, implies a contract not to reassert the right. And the Constitution also protects even state charters granted to private persons for private purposes, whether these be literary, charitable, religious, or commercial. (See also DONATION.)

T. SLATER & CHARLES W. SLOANE

The Social Contract

Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique, is the title of a work written by J.J. Rousseau and published in 1762. From the time of his stay at Venice, about 1741, Rousseau had in mind a large treatise dealing with "Les institutions politiques". The Contrat Social is but a fragment of this treatise.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

Book I

The Contrat Social is divided into four books. The first treats of the formation of societies and the social contract. Social order is a sacred right which is at the foundation of all other rights. It does not come from nature. The family is the most ancient and the most natural of all societies; but this association of parents and children, necessary as long as these cannot provide for themselves, is maintained afterwards only by convention. Some philosophers have said that among men some are born for slavery, others for domination; but they confound cause and effect; if some are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Again, social order is not based on force, for the strongest is not strong enough to retain at all times his supremacy unless he transforms force into right, and obedience into duty. But in that case right would change places with force. If it is necessary to obey because of force, there is no need of obeying because of duty; and if one is not forced to obey there is no longer any obligation.

All legitimate authority among men is based on an agreement. This argument, according to Grotius, has its foundation in the right of a people to alienate its freedom. But to alienate is to give or to sell. A man does not give himself; at most he sells himself for a living; but for what should a people sell itself. To give itself gratuitously would be an act of folly and therefore null and void. Moreover, even if a man has the right to give himself, he has no right to give his children who are born men and free. Grotius, again, in order to legitimize slavery, appeals to the right of the conqueror to kill the conquered or to spare his life at the price of his freedom. But war is a relation between State and State, and not between man and man. It gives the right to kill soldiers so long as they are armed, but, once they have laid down their arms, there remain only men and no one has the right to kill them; besides, no one has the right to enslave men. The words slavery and right are contradictory.

The social order originates in an altogether primitive and unanimous agreement. When men in the state of nature have reached that stage where the individual is unable to cope with adverse forces, they are compelled to change their way of living. They cannot create new forces, but they can unite their individual energies and thus overcome the obstacles to life. The fundamental problem is, then, "to find a form of association which defends and protects with the whole common energy, the person and property of each associate, and by which each individual associate, uniting himself to all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before". The solution is a contract by which each one puts in common his person and all his forces under the supreme direction of the "general will". Where results a moral and collective body formed of as many members as there are persons in the community. In this body the condition is equal for all, since each gives himself wholly; the union is perfect, since each gives himself unreservedly; and finally, each, giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. This body is called the "State or Sovereign"; the members, who, taken together, form "the people" are the "citizens" as participating in the supreme authority, and "subjects" as subjected to the laws. By this contract man passes from the natural to the civil state, from instinct to morality and justice. He loses his natural freedom and his unlimited right to all that he attempts or is able to do, but he gains civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses by becoming the acknowledged trustee of a part of the public property.

Book II

The second book deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right. It is determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest. But though the general will is always right and always desires what is good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide. He drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them.

Book III

The third book treats of government and its exercise. In the State it is not sufficient to make laws, it is also necessary to enforce them. Although the sovereign or general will has the legislative power, it cannot exercise by itself the executive power. It needs a special agent, intermediary between the subjects and the sovereign, which applies the laws under the direction of the general will. This is precisely the part of the Government which is the minister of the sovereign and not sovereign itself. The one or the several magistrates who form the Government are only the trustees of the executive powers; they are the officers of the sovereign, and their office is not the result of a contract, but a charge laid upon them; they receive from the sovereign the orders which they transmit to the people, and the sovereign can at will limit, modify, or revoke this power.

The three principal forms of government are: democracy, a government by the whole, or the greater part, of the people; aristocracy, government by a few; monarchy, government by one.

• Democracy is in practice impossible. It demands conditions too numerous and virtues too difficult for the whole people. "If there were a people of gods, its government would be democratic, so perfect a government is not for men."
• Aristocracy may be natural, hereditary, or elective. The first is found only among simple and primitive people; the second is the worst of all governments; the third, where the power is given to the wisest, to those who have more time for public affairs, is the best and the most natural of all governments whenever it is certain that those who wield power will use it for the public welfare and not for their own interest.
• No government is more vigorous than monarchy; but it presents great dangers; if the end is not the public welfare, the whole energy of the administration is concentrated for the detriment of the State. Kings seek to be absolute, and offices are given to intriguers.

Theoretically, a government simple and pure in form is the best; practically, it must be combined with, and controlled by, elements borrowed from other forms. Also, it is to be remarked that not every form of government is equally suitable to every country; but the government of each country must be adapted to the character of its people. "All things being equal, the best form of government for a country is the one under which the citizens, without any outside means, without naturalization or colonies, increase and multiply." In order to prevent any usurpation on the part of the government, some fixed and periodical meetings of the people must be determined by law, during which all executive power is suspended, and all authority is in the hands of the people. In these meetings the people will decide two questions: "Whether it pleases the sovereign to preserve the present form of government, and whether it pleases the people to continue the administration in the hands of those who are actually in charge." Intermediary between the sovereign authority and the Government there is sometimes another power, that of the deputies or representatives. The general will, however, cannot be represented any more than it can be alienated; the deputies are not representatives of the people, but its commissioners; they cannot decide anything definitively; hence, any law which is not ratified by the people is null. The institution of the Government, therefore, is not based on a contract between the people and the magistrates; it is a law. Those who hold power are the officers, not the masters, of the people; they have not to make a contract, but to obey; by fulfilling their functions they simply discharge their duties as citizens.

Book IV

In the fourth book, Rousseau speaks of certain social institutions. The general will is indestructible; it expresses itself through elections. As to different modes of elections and institutions, such as tribunate, dictatorship, censure, etc., the history of the ancient republics of Rome and Greece, of Sparta especially, can teach us something about their value. Religion is at the very foundation of the State. At all times it has occupied a large place in the life of the people. The Christianity of the Gospel is a holy religion, but by teaching detachment from earthly things it conflicts with the social spirit. It produces men who fulfil their duties with indifference, and soldiers who know how to die rather than how to win. It is important for the State that each citizen should have a religion that will help him to love his duty; but the dogmas of this religion are of no concern to the State except in so far as they are related to morality or duties towards others. There must be, therefore, in the State a religion of which the sovereign shall determine the articles, not as dogmas of religion, but as sentiments of sociability. Whosoever does not accept them may be banished, not as impious, but as unsociable; and whosoever, after having accepted them, will not act according to them shall be punished by death. These articles shall be few and precise; existence of the Divinity, powerful, intelligent, good, and provident; future life, happiness of the just; chastisement of the wicked; sanctity of the social contract and the laws; these are the positive dogmas. There is also one negative dogma: Whosoever shall say, "Outside of the Church there is no salvation", ought to be banished from the State.

CRITIQUE OF THE BOOK

The influence of this book was immense. Rousseau owes much indeed to Hobbes and Locke, and to Montesquieu's Esprit des lois, published fourteen years before; but, by the extreme prominence given to the ideas of popular sovereignty, of liberty and equality, and especially by his highly coloured style, his short and concise formula, he put within the common reach principles and concepts which had hitherto been confined to scientific exposition. The book gave expression to ideas and feelings which, at a time of political and social unrest, were growing in the popular mind. It would be interesting to determine how far Rousseau influenced the framing of various modern constitutions; at any rate, he furnished the French Revolution with its philosophy, and his principles direct the actual political life of France. His book, says Mallet du Pan, was "the Koran of the Revolutionists", and Carlyle rightly calls Rousseau "the Evangelist of the French Revolution". The orators of the Constituante quoted its sentences and formulae, and if it may be believed that Rousseau would have condemned the massacres and violences of 1793, the Jacobins, nevertheless, looked to his principles for the justification of their acts.

It is quite intelligible that the Contrat Social should have come to be considered by some as the gospel of freedom and democracy, by others as the code of revolution and anarchy. That it contains serious contradictions is undeniable. For instance, Rousseau assigns as the essential basis of the general will the unanimous consent of the people, yet he assumes that this general will is expressed in the plurality of suffrages; he affirms that parents have no right to engage their children by a contract, and yet children from their birth will be subject to the primitive contract; he affirms that a man has no right to alienate himself, yet he bases the social contract essentially on the total alienation of personal rights and personality in favour of the community. If there are some true considerations and reflections in this book--as, for instance, on slavery and the dignity of man, on the adaptation of the divers forms of government to the character of the people, etc.--its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural.

He bases society on a convention, ignoring the fact and truth so clearly shown both by psychology and history that man is a being essentially social, and that, as Bonald says, the "law of sociability is as natural to man as the law of gravitation to physical bodies". He affirms as a first principle that all men are born free. He calls the natural state a state of instinct, and he defines natural freedom as the unlimited right of each to do whatever he can. He opposes to this natural state and freedom the civil state which he calls the state of justice and morality, and civil liberty, which is freedom limited by the general will. This evidently implies that man is born an animal with force as its power and instinct as its guide, and not an intelligent and free being. Rousseau forgets that, if natural freedom is power to act, it is at the same time an activity subjected to a rule and discipline determined by the very object and conditions of human life; that if all men are born with a right to freedom, they are also born with a duty to direct this freedom; that, if all are born equally free--in the fundamental sense that all have the same essential right to live a human life and to attain human perfection--still, this very right is determined in its mode of exercise for each individual by special laws and conditions; in a word, that the natural state of man is both freedom and discipline in the individual as well as in the social life. Rousseau's conception of freedom leads him directly to an individualism and a naturalism which have no limits save those of brute force itself.

Again, he declares that all men are born naturally equal. Now this principle is true if it is understood in the sense of a specific equality, the foundation of human dignity. Every man has the right, equal in all, to be treated as a man, to be respected in his personal dignity as a man, to be protected and helped by authority in his effort towards perfection. But the principle is fundamentally false, if, as interpreted by Rousseau, it means individual equality. The son is not individually equal to his father, nor the infant to the adult, nor the dull to the intelligent, nor the poor to the rich, in individual needs, rights, or special duties. The natural relations between individual men, their reciprocal duties and rights, involve both equality and hierarchy. The basis of social relations is not absolute individual independence and arbitrary will, but freedom exercised with respect for authority. By his interpretation of this principle, Rousseau leads to a false individualism which ends in anarchy.

Rousseau maintains that society arises through the total alienation of the personality and rights of each associate; hence, for the absolute individualism of nature he substitutes an absolute socialism in the civil state. It is the general will which is the ultimate source and supreme criterion of justice, morality, property, and religion. Then we have, in spite of all the explanations advanced by Rousseau, the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd, the destruction of true freedom, morality, and society. The French Revolution was the realization of these principles. Society has not its foundation in the free alienation of personality and rights, but in the natural union of all personalities, or, rather, families, with a view to reach their perfection. Society is not the source of duties and rights of families or individuals, but the protector and helper of families and individuals in the fulfilment of their duties and rights; its existence is commanded, its authority is limited, by this very end. Society is not formed from elements all individually equal, but is organized from graduated elements. These degrees of authority, however, in the social organization are not by nature the exclusive possession of anybody, but accessible to the capacities and the efforts of all. Society is made up of authority and subjects; and this authority, while it may be determined in its subject and manner of exercise by the people, has not its foundation in their will, but in human nature itself as God created it.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Contrition

(Lat. contritio--a breaking of something hardened).

In Holy Writ nothing is more common than exhortations to repentance: "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezech., xxxiii, 11); "Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish" (Luke, xiii, 5; cf. Matt., xii, 41). At times this repentance includes exterior acts of satisfaction (Ps. vi, 7 sqq.); it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Ps. 1 (5-14): "For I know my iniquity . . . To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee . . .. Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create a clean heart in me", etc. More clearly does this appear in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke, xviii, 13), and more clearly still in the story of the prodigal (Luke, xv, 11-32): "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son".

NATURE OF CONTRITION

This interior repentance has been called by theologians "contrition". It is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione): "a sorrow of soul and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future". The word contrition itself in a moral sense is not of frequent occurrence in Scripture (cf. Ps. 1, 19). Etymologically it implies a breaking of something that has become hardened. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Master of the Sentences thus explains its peculiar use: "Since it is requisite for the remission of sin that a man cast away entirely the liking for sin which implies a sort of continuity and solidity in his mind, the act which obtains forgiveness is termed by a figure of speech 'contrition'" (In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvii; cf. Supplem. III, Q. i, a. 1). This sorrow of soul is not merely speculative sorrow for wrong done, remorse of conscience, or a resolve to amend; it is a real pain and bitterness of soul together with a hatred and horror for sin committed; and this hatred for sin leads to the resolve to sin no more. The early Christian writers in speaking of the nature of contrition sometimes insist on the feeling of sorrow, sometimes on the detestation of the wrong committed (Augustine in P.L., XXXVII, 1901, 1902; Chrysostom, P.G., XLVII, 409, 410). Augustine includes both when writing: "Compunctus corde non solet dici nisi stimulus peccatorum in dolore pœ;nitendi" (P.L., Vol. VI of Augustine, col. 1440). Nearly all the medieval theologians hold that contrition is based principally on the detestation of sin. This detestation presupposes a knowledge of the heinousness of sin, and this knowledge begets sorrow and pain of soul. "A sin is committed by the consent, so it is blotted out by the dissent of the rational will; hence contrition is essentially sorrow. But it should be noted that sorrow has a twofold signification--dissent of the will and the consequent feeling; the former is of the essence of contrition, the latter is its effect" (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. I, art. 1). [See also St. Thomas Aquinas, Comment. in Lib. Sent. IV; Billuart (De Sac. Pœ;nit., Diss. iv, art. 1) seems to hold the opposite opinion.]

NECESSITY OF CONTRITION

Until the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin. But with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a natural consequence. Leo X in the famous Bull "Exsurge" [Denzinger, no. 751 (635)] condemned the following Lutheran position: "By no means believe that you are forgiven on account of your contrition, but because of Christ's words, 'Whatsoever thou shalt loose', etc. On this account I say, that if you receive the priest's absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and trulyabsolved you will be, let the contrition be as it may." Luther could not deny that in every true conversion there was grief of soul, but he asserted that this was the result of the grace of God poured into the soul at the time of justification, etc. (for this discussion see Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Contrition.) Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises (a) from the very nature of repentance as well as (b) from the positive command of God. (a) 'They point out that the sentence of Christ in Luke, xiii, 5, is final: "Except you do penance", etc., and from the Fathers they cite passages such as the following from Cyprian, "De Lapsis ", no. 32: "Do penance in full, give proof of the sorrow that comes from a grieving and lamenting soul . . . they who do away with repentance for sin, close the door to satisfaction." Scholastic doctors laid down the satisfaction' principle, "No one can begin a new life who does not repent him of the old" (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, Pt. II, art. 1, Q. ii, also ex professo, ibid., Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii), and when asked the reason why, they point out the absolute incongruity of turning to God and clinging to sin, which is hostile to God's law. The Council of Trent, mindful of the tradition of the ages, defined (Sess. XlV. ch. iv de Contritione) that "contrition has always been necessary for obtaining forgiveness of sin". (b) The positive command of God is also clear in the premises. The Baptist sounded the note of preparation for the coming of the Messias: "Make straight his paths"; and, as a consequence "they went out to him and were baptized confessing their sins". The first preaching of Jesus is described in the words: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; and the Apostles, in their first sermons to the people, warn them to "do penance and be baptized for the remission of their sins" (Acts, ii, 38). The Fathers followed up with like exhortation (Clement in P.G., I, 341; Hermas iii P.G., II, 894; Tertullian in P.L., II).

PERFECT AND IMPERFECT CONTRITION

Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rings from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione). For the doctrine of imperfect contrition see ATTRITION.

QUALITIES

In accord with Catholic tradition contrition, whether it be perfect or imperfect, must be at once (a) interior, (b) supernatural, (c) universal, and (d) sovereign.

(a) Interior

Contrition must be real and sincere sorrow of heart, and not merely an external manifestation of repentance. The Old Testament Prophets laid particular stress on the necessity of hearty repentance. The Psalmist says that God despises not the "contrite heart" (Ps. I, 19), and the call to Israel was, "Be converted to me with all your heart . . . and rend your hearts, and not your garments" (Joel, ii, 12 sq). Holy Job did penance in sackcloth and ashes because he reprehended himself in sorrow of soul (Job, xiii, 6). The contrition adjudged necessary by Chris and his Apostles was no mere formality, but the sincere expression of the sorrowing soul (Luke, xiv, 11-32; Luke, xviii, 13); and the grief of the woman in the house of the Pharisee merited forgiveness because "she loved much". The exhortations to penance found everywhere in the Fathers have no uncertain sound Cyprian, De Lapsis, P.L., IV; Chrysostom, De compunctione, P.G., XLVII, 393 sqq.), and the Scholastic doctors from Peter Lombard on insist on the same sincerity in repentance (Peter Lombard, Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xvi, no. 1).

(b) Supernatural

In accordance with Catholic teaching contrition ought to be prompted by God's grace and aroused by motives which spring from faith, as opposed to merely natural motives, such as loss of honour, fortune, and the like (Chemnitz, Exam. Concil. Trid., Pt. II, De Poenit.). In th e Old Testament it is God who gives a "new heart" and who puts a "new spirit)" into the children of Israel (Ezech., xxxvi, 25-29); and for a clean heart the Psalmist prays in the Miserere (Ps. 1, 11 sqq.). St. Peter told those to whom he preached in the first days after Pentecost that God the Father had raised up Christ "to give repentance to Israel" (Acts, v, 30 sq.). St. Paul in advising Timothy insists on dealing gently and kindly with those who resist the truth, "if peradventure God may give them full repentance" (II Tim., ii, 24-25). In the days of the Pelagian heresy Augustine insisted on the supernaturalness of contrition, when he writes, "That we turn away from God is our doing, and this is the bad will; but to turn back to God we are unable unless He arouse and help us, and this is the good will." Some of the Scholastic doctors, notably Scotus, Cajetan, and after them Suarez (De Poenit., Disp. iii, sect. vi), asked speculatively whether man if left to himself could elicit a true act of contrition, but no theologian ever taught that makes for forgiveness of sin in the present economy of God could be inspired by merely natural motives. On the contrary, all the doctors have insisted on the absolute necessity of grace for contrition that disposes to forgiveness (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xiv, Pt. I, art. II, Q. iii; also dist. xvii, Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii; cf. St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV). In keeping with this teaching of the Scriptures and the doctors, the Council of Trent defined; "If anyone say that without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His aid a man can repent in the way that is necessary for obtaining the grace of justification, let him be anathema."

(c) Universal

The Council of Trent defined that real contrition includes "a firm purpose of not sinning in the future"; consequently he who repents must resolve to avoid all sin. This doctrine is intimately bound up with the Catholic teaching concerning grace and repentance. There is no forgiveness without sorrow of soul, and forgiveness is always accompanied by God's grace; grace cannot coexist with sin; and, as a consequence, one sin cannot be forgiven while another remains for which their is no repentance. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. The Prophet urged men to turn to God with their whole heart (Joel, ii, 12 sq.), and Christ tells the doctor of the law that we must love God with our whole mind, our whole strength (Luke, x, 27). Ezechiel insists that a man must "turn from his evil ways" if he wish to live. The Scholastics inquired rather subtly into this question when they asked whether or not there must be a special act of contrition for every serious sin, and whether, in order to be forgiven, one must remember at the moment all grievous transgressions. To both questions they answered in the negative, judging that an act of sorrow which implicitly included all his sins would be sufficient.

(d) Sovereign

The Council of Trent insists that true contrition includes the firm will never to sin again, so that no mater what evil may come, such evil must be preferred to sin. This doctrine is surely Christ's: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?" Theologians have discussed at great length whether or not contrition which must be sovereign appretiative, i.e., in regarding sin as the greatest possible evil, must also be sovereign in degree and in intensity. The decision has generally been that sorrow need not be sovereign "intensively", for intensity makes no change in the substance of an act (Ballerini, Opus Morale: De Contritione; Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xxi, Pt. I, art. II, Q. i).

CONTRITION IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

Contrition is not only a moral virtue, but the Council of Trent defined that it is a "part", nay more, quasi materia, in the Sacrament of Penance. "The (quasi) matter of this sacrament consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. These, inasmuch as they are by God's institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sin, are for this reason called parts of penance. "In consequence of this decree of Trent theologians teach that sorrow for sin must be in some sense sacramental. La Croix went so far as to say that sorrow must be aroused with a view of going to confession, but this seems to be asking too much; most theologians think with Schieler-Heuser (Theory and Practice of Confession, p. 113) that it is sufficient if the sorrow coexist in any way with the confession and is referred to it. Hence the precept of the Roman Ritual, "After the confessor has heard the confession he should try by earnest exhortation to move the penitent to contrition" (Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., p. 111 sqq.).

PERFECT CONTRITION WITHOUT THE SACRAMENT

Regarding that contrition which has for its motive the love of God, the Council of Trent declares: "The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes." The following proposition (no. 32) taken from Baius was condemned by Gregory XIII: "That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always conjoined with forgiveness of sins." Perfect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the teaching of the Scholastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P.L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.). This doctrine they derived from Holy Writ. Scripture certainly ascribes to charity and the love of God the power to take away sin: "He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father"; "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much". Since the act of perfect contrition implies necessarily this same love of God, theologians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scripture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God' grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezech., xxxiii, 11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke, vii, 47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): "What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she hat loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love." Theologians have inquired with much learning as to the kind of love that justifies with the Sacrament of Penance. All are agreed that pure, or disinterested, love (amor benevolentiæ, amor amicitiæ) suffices; when there is question of interested, or selfish, love (amor concupiscentia) theologians hold that purely selfish love is not sufficient. When on furthermore asks what must be the formal motive in perfect love, there seems to be no real unanimity among the doctors. Some say that where there is perfect love God is loved for His great goodness alone; other, basing their contention on Scripture, think that the love of gratitude (amor gratitudinis) is quite sufficient, because God's benevolence and love towards men are intimately united, nay, inseparable from His Divine perfections (Hurter, Theol. Dog., Thesis ccxlv, Scholion iii, no 3; Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., pp. 77 sq.).

OBLIGATION OF ELICITING THE ACT OF CONTRITION

In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de Contritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is impossible. This obligation urges under pain of sin when there is danger of death. In danger of death, therefore, if a priest be not at hand to administer the sacrament, the sinner must make an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. The obligation of perfect contrition is also urgent whensoever one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is necessary and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. Theologians have questions how long a man may remain in the state of sin, without making an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. They seem agreed that such neglect must have extended over considerable time, but what constitutes a considerable time they find it hard to determine (Schieler-Hauser, op. cit., pp. 83 sqq.). Probably the rule of St. Alphonsus Liguori will aid the solution: "The duty of making an act of contrition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love" (Sabetti, Theologia Moralis: de necess. contritionis, no. 731; Ballerine, Opus Morale: de contritione).

CHRISTIAN PESCH, Prælectiones Dogmaticæ (Freiburg, 1897), VII; HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1896); St. Thomas, In Sent. IV, dist. xvii, Q. ii, a 1, sol. 1; SUAREZ, De Pænitentiâ, disp. iv, sect. iii, a,2; BELLARMINE, De Controversiis, Bk. II, De sacramento pænitentiæ; SALMATICENSES, Cursus Theologicus: de pænitientiâ (Paris, 1883), XX; DENIFLE, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung (Mainz, 1906), I, 229 sqq., II, 454, 517, 618 sq.; COLLET in MIGNE, Theologiæ Cursus Completus (Paris, 1840), XXII; PALMIERI, De Pænitentiâ (Rome, 1879; Prato, 1896); PETAVIUS, Dogmata Theologica: de pænitentiâ (Paris, 1867).

EDWARD J. HANNA

Contumacy (in Canon Law)

Contumacy, or contempt of court, is an obstinate disobedience of the lawful orders of a court. Simple disobedience does not constitute contumacy. Such crime springs only from unequivocal and stubborn resistance to the reiterated or peremptory orders of a legitimate court, and implies contempt or denial of its authority. The general law of the Church demands that the citation, or order to appear, be repeated three times (in the United States twice) before proceedings declaratory of contumacy take place. A peremptory citation, stating that the one replaces the three, satisfies the law. Contumacy may arise not only from disobedience to the citation proper, but also from contempt of any order of a lawful court. Contumacy is commonly divided into true and presumptive. True contumacy takes place when it is certain that the citation was served, and the defendant without just cause fails to obey the terms of such citation. Presumptive contumacy occurs when there is a strong presumption, though it is not certain, that the citation was served. The law holds this presumption equivalent to a moral certitude of service of citation. The defendant becomes guilty of contumacy if, when lawfully cited, he fails to appear before the judge, or if he secludes himself, or in any way prevents the service of citation. The plaintiff incurs the guilt of contumacy by failure to appear before the court at the specified time. And the defendant or plaintiff may be proceeded against on the charge of contempt, if either rashly withdraws from the trial, or disobeys a special precept of the judge, or refuses to answer the charges of the other party. A witness becomes guilty of contumacy by disobeying the summons or by refusal to testify in the cause at issue.

All causes excusing appearance in court exempt from contempt of court. The following, among others, produce such effects:

• (1) ill-health;
• (2) absence on public affairs;
• (3) summons to a higher court;
• (4) inclement weather;
• (5) unsafety of place to which cited.

These and like causes, if known to the judge, render null and void any sentence pronounced by him in such circumstances. But if they be unknown to the judge at the time of sentence, the condemned, on motion, must be reinstated in the position held by him prior to the sentence. Contumacy should never be held equivalent to a juridical confession of guilt. It cannot therefore dispense with the trial, but only makes it lawful to proceed in the absence of the party guilty of contumacy as though he were present (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, no. 313). Contempt of court, being an act of resistance to legitimate authority, is a crime, and therefore punishable. The chief penalties are:

• (1) The trial proceeds in the absence of the contumacious person, and presumably to his detriment;
• (2) presumption of guilt, but not sufficient for conviction;
• (3) a pecuniary fine at the discretion of the judge;
• (4) suspension;
• (5) excommunication may be inflicted, and if the contumacious party be not absolved within one year he may be proceeded against as suspected of heresy (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, ch. iii de Ref.);
• (6) loss of the right of appeal from a definitive sentence, in all cases of true contumacy.

Presumptive contumacy does not carry this penalty. Before inflicting penalties the guilt of contumacy must be established by legal proof. The accused must be cited to answer the charge of contumacy, which must be prosecuted according to the procedure established and laid down in the law.

SANTI-LEITNER, Prœlectiones Juris Canonici (New York, 1905); SMITH, Ecclesiastical Trials (New York, 1887), II, 1010-1025; BAART, Legal Formulary (New York, 1898). 324-330; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v.; ANDRÉ-WAGNER, Dict. de droit can. (3rd ed., Paris, 1901), I, 563; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). s. v.

JAMES H. DRISCOLL.

Adam Contzen

Economist and exegete, b. in 1573 (according to Sommervogel in 1575), at Montjoie in the Dutchy of Jülich, which is now part of the Rhine province of Prussia; d. 19 June, 1635, at Munich. He entered the Society of Jesus at Trier in 1595, was professor of philosophy in the University of Würzburg in 1606, and was transferred to the University of Mainz in 1610, where he occupied the chair of Holy Scripture for more than ten years. He had a share in the organization of the University of Molsheim, in Alsace, of which he was chancellor, 1622-1623. Contzen was a learned and versatile writer in theological controversy, in political economy, and in the interpretation of Scriptures. He defended the controversial works of Cardinal Bellarmine against the attacks of Professor Pareus of Heidelberg, and when the latter sought to unite the Calvinists and the Lutherans against the Catholics, Contzen demonstrated the impractical nature of the project in his work, "De unione et synodo Evangelicorum", and showed the only way of restoring peace to the German nation in his important work "De Pace Germaniæ libri duo, prioe de falsâ, alter de verâ" (Mainz, 1616). This work was twice reprinted in Cologne, in 1642 and in 1685. His ideas on the restoration of peace were further developed in the works occasioned by the centenary of the Reformation, one of which, Jubilum Jubilorum" was published (1618) in Latin and German. His most interesting work, which marks him as a thinker in advance of his age, "Politicorum lib. X", was published in Mainz in 1621 and 1629. The book has been called an "Anti-Macchiavelli" because the author describes the ruler of a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principals of Revelation. In the questions of political and national economy which he discusses he advocates the reform of taxation, the freeing of the soil from excessive burdens, state ownership of certain industries for the purposes of revenue, indirect taxation of objects of luxury, a combination of the protective system with free trade, and state aid for popular associations. The Elector Macmillan of Bavaria was so impressed by the ability shown in this work that he chose Contzen for his confessor. During his residence in Munich, which began in 1623, he completed and published his commentary on the four Gospels, and on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. He also wrote a political novel, "Methodus doctrinæ civilis, seu Abissini regis Historia", in which he showed the practical working of his political theories.

Brischar, P. Adam Contzen, ein Ireniker und Nationalökonom des 17 Jahrhunderts (Würzburg, 1879); Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, s.v.; Striber in Kirchenlex., s.v.

B. GUILDNER

Convent

(Lat. conventus).

Originally signified an assembly of Roman citizens in the provinces for purposes of administration and justice. In the history of monasticism the word has two distinct technical meanings:

• A religious community of either sex when spoken of in its corporate capacity. The word was first used in this sense when the eremitical life began to be combined with the cenobitical. The hermits of an Eastern laura, living in separate cells grouped around that of their common superior, when spoken of collectively, were called a conventus. In Western monasticism the term came into general use from the very beginning and the technical phrase abbas et conventus signifies to this day the entire community of a monastic establishment.
• The buildings in which resides a community of either sex. In this sense the word denotes more properly the home of a strictly monastic order, and is not correctly used to designate the home of what is called a congregation. In addition to these technical meanings, the word has also a popular signification at the present day, by which it is made to mean in particular the abode of female religious, just as monastery denotes that of men, though in reality the two words are interchangeable. In the present article the word is taken chiefly in its popular sense. The treatment, moreover, is limited to those features which are common to all, or nearly all, convents, while peculiarities due to the special purpose, rule, or occupation of each religious order are explained in the pertinent article.

CONVENT LIFE

The life lived by the inmates of a convent naturally varies in its details, according to the particular object for which it has been founded, or the special circumstances of time and place by which it is affected. Convents are often roughly divided into two classes, strictly enclosed and unenclosed, but with regard to the convents existing at the present day this division, though correct as far as it goes, it not a very satisfactory one, because both classes are capable of subdivision, and, on account of the varied kinds of work undertaken by the nuns, these subdivisions overlap one another. Thus, of the strictly enclosed communities, some are purely contemplative, other mainly active (i.e. engaged in educational or rescue work), while other again combine the two. Similarly, of the unenclosed orders, some are purely active (i.e. undertaking educational, parochial, hospital, or other work), and others unite the contemplative with the active life, without, however, being strictly enclosed. As a general deduction it may be stated that the contemplative life, in which women are actuated by a desire to save their own souls and the souls of other by their lives of prayer, seclusion, and mortification, was the idea of the older orders, while the distinctive note of the more modern congregations is that of active work amongst others and the relief of their bodily wants.

With regard to the educational work of the convents, it may here be stated that this includes the teaching of both elementary and secondary schools, as well as the training of teachers for such schools and higher education. The hospital and nursing work comprises the management of hospitals, bother general and for special classes of patients, as well as the nursing of both rich and poor in their own homes. Rescue work includes the conduct of penitentiaries, orphanages, and homes for the aged poor. A few convents make special provision for the reception of guests, for retreats and other spiritual purposes, and a large proportion of them receive boarders at moderate charges. Some, mostly of enclosed communities, have undertaken the work of Perpetual Adoration, while others devote themselves to ecclesiastical embroidery and the making of church vestments. This particular kind of work has always been characteristic of English nuns, whose embroidery, known as the opus anglicanum, was famous in medieval times (Matthew Paris, Rolls, ed., IV, an. 1246). The ordinary routine of life in a nunnery has always corresponded approximately with that of a monastery. The nunUs day is divided between the choir, the workroom, the schoolroom, the refectory, the recreation room, the cell, and, with the active orders, the outside work, in periodical rotation. Idleness or lack of occupation is never permitted. The earliest rules for nuns, as well as the most modern, all prescribe labour of some useful kind. The medieval nuns could always read and write Latin, and they also employed themselves in transcribing and illuminating sacred books, and in many of the fine arts, the cultivation of which they consecrated to the service of God. The convents thus were always homes of industry, and just as formerly they played no small part in the spread of civilization, so now they are almost indispensable handmaids to the cause of the Catholic Church.

UNFOUNDED CALUMNIES

It is not necessary here to refute the many base and vile charges that have from time to time been brought against the conventual system; a mere general reference to them is sufficient, for the evidence of the salutary work done by convents and the gruits of the lives of the nuns are in themselves ample refutation. In the past there have been "anti-convent" and "convent-inspection" societies, as well as the lectures of "escaped nuns" and literature in abundance of the "Maria Monk" type, and they may be expected to crop up again periodically in the future. These may and do for a time hamper the work of the nuns and cause a certain amount of disquietude in some quarters, but it is a significant fact that, whatever excitement they may raise for the time being, the agitation always dies down again as suddenly as it arises, and its harmful effects never appear to leave behind them any lasting results, except perhaps an increased interest in, and respect for, the conventual life that has been vilified.

LEGISLATION AS TO CONVENTS

Canon law contains a large and important section relating to the establishment and government of convents. The privileges of such as are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, the appointment of confessors for the nuns, and the duties of the same, the regulations of the Church concerning enclosure, and the admission and testing of candidates, the nature and obligations of the vows, the limits of the powers of superiors, and the conditions regarding the erection of new convents are among the many points of detail legislated for. One or two points may be alluded to here. The law of the Church requires that no new convent be established, whether it be one that is exempt from episcopal jurisdiction or not, without the consent of the bishop of the diocese; for what is technically called canonical erection further formalities, including approbation from Rome, have to be complied with. All confessors for nuns must be specially approved by the bishop, even those of convents that are exempt from his ordinary jurisdiction, and the bishop has also to provide that all nuns can have access two or three times in the year to an "extraordinary" confessor, other than their usual one. The bishop also is obliged periodically to visit and inspect all the convents in his diocese, excepting those that are exempt, at the time of which visitation every nun must be free to see him privately in order to make any complaints or suggestions that she may wish. With regard to the admission of postulants the law provides for every precaution being taken, on the one hand, to prevent coercion and, on the other, to safeguard the community from being obliged to receive those about whose vocation there may be any doubt. Physical fitness on the part of a candidate is in most orders an indispensable condition, thought there are some which admit women of delicate health; but, once admitted and professed, the tract becomes reciprocal, and while the nun undertakes to keep her vows, the convent, on its side, is bound to provide her with lodging, food, and clothing, and to maintain her in sickness or in health (see NOVITIATE; VOW).

DOWRY

With regard to the dowry required of a nun, the customs and rules of the different orders vary much according to circumstances. Some convents, on account of their poverty, are obliged to insist upon it, and, generally speaking, most expect their members to bring some contribution to the general fund. A convent that is rich will often dispense with the dowry in the case of a highly promising candidate, but it must always depend upon particular circumstances. The minimum amount of the dowry required is generally fixed by the rule or constitutions of the convent or order.

OFFICE

In most of the older contemplative orders the choir nuns are bound to rthe whole Divine Office in choir. In only a very few of the English convents, e.g. Cistercians, Dominicans, and Poor Clares, do the nuns rise in the night for Matins and Lauds; in the others these Offices are generally said in the evening "by anticipation". In some there are other additional offices recited daily; thus the Cistercians and the Poor Clares say the Office of Our Lady and that of the Dead every day, and the Brigittines say the latter thrice in the week, as well as an Office of the Holy Ghost. Almost all the active orders, both enclosed and unenclosed, use the Office of Our Lady, but some, like the Sisters of Charity, are not bound to the recitation of any Office at all.

LAY SISTERS

In most orders the nuns are divided into choir sisters and lay sisters. The latter are usually employed in the household duties and other manual work. They take the usual vows and are as truly religious as the choir nuns, but they are not bound to the choir Office, though they often attend the choir at the time of Office and recite certain prayers in the vernacular. There is always a distinction between their habit and that of the choir nuns, sometimes very slight and sometimes strongly marked. In some orders where the choir sisters are enclosed the lay sisters are not; but in others they are as strictly enclosed as the choir nuns. Several orders have, by their rule, no lay sisters, among them being the Sisters of Notre Dame, the Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of Bon Secours, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Poor Servants of the Mother of God.

CONVENTUAL BUILDINGS

The internal arrangement of a properly constituted convent is, for the most part, similar to that of a monastery for men (see ABBEY and MONASTERY), but from poverty and other obvious causes, many convents have had to be established in already-existing ordinary dwelling-houses, which do not always lend themselves to ideal adaption. (See CLOISTER; DOWER OF RELIGIOUS; NUN; OFFICE; SCHOOLS.)

G. CUPRIAN ALSTON

Convent Schools (Great Britain)

Convent education is treated here not historically but as it is at the present day, and, by the way of introduction, it may be briefly stated that the idea of including the education of the young amongst the occupations of a religious community is practically as old as that of the religious life for women itself. From the earliest times it was customary in England for children to be educated in convents, and we know that the nuns who went forth from Wimborne in the eighth century to help St. Boniface in his work of evangelizing Saxony, established convent schools wherever they went, in which a very high standard of scholarship was attained. Stray remarks in Chaucer and other medieval writers likewise reveal the fact that the English convent schools of the Middle Ages compared favourably with schools for the other sex. But all this came to an end at the Reformation, so far as England was concerned; and, save for one notable exception, English convent education had practically to start afresh in the nineteenth century. The exception referred to was the bar Convent at York, belonging to the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose foundress, Mary Ward, was the pioneer of religious congregations devoted to the education of English girls. The bar Convent was established in 1686, and in spite of penal laws, Protestant persecution, no-popery riots, and even, on more than one occasion, the imprisonment of the nuns for their faith, the work of the convent has continued from that day to this, and with its hundred and eighty houses in different parts of the English-speaking world, the Institute of the B. V. M. has long held a foremost place amongst the teaching orders of the Church.

The opening of numerous convents in England during the latter half of the nineteenth century has produced correspondingly numerous convent schools, in many of which, be it noted, Protestant as well as Catholic girls (especially in day and elementary schools) have been and are still being educated. The foundation of training colleges for Catholic teachers, the demand for teachers with academic qualifications, the move in favour of Government inspection with the consequent official recognition of convent schools, and the more recent advance in the way of higher education for Catholic women, have all combined to raise the standard of convent education; and the leading teaching orders have proved equal to the demand made upon their capabilities and energy. The convents stand foremost in the work they have done for religion and education, and they have turned out hundreds of girls, not only educated in the highest sense of the word but also truly religious.

Although in its widest sense the term "Convent Schools" may be taken to include all those, of whatever kind, in which the work of education is undertaken by female religious - such as primary or elementary schools (whether mixed or for girls only), reformatory and industrial schools - it is only proposed in this article to deal with secondary schools, i.e. day or boarding schools for the upper and middle classes, training colleges for Catholic schoolmistresses, and colleges for the higher education of women, these being more closely connected with convent life itself.

SECONDARY EDUCATION

Almost all convent secondary schools are under Government inspection. This gives them the status of being "recognized" by the Board of Education, regulates their course of studies, and ensures unity of method and efficiency. Some are also in receipt of a State aid-grant, which places certain restrictions upon their methods of management. Where no grant is accepted the nuns are more independent as regards the admission and refusal of pupils. The aim of all religious orders engaged in secondary education for girls is, whilst making every effort to keep abreast of modern requirements with regard to scholastic efficiency, to give also the additional advantage of a thorough religious training, so that parents may have no reason to fear that by securing the latter for their children they are sacrificing the greater temporal advantages that might be obtained at a Protestant school. The system of Government inspection and recognition by the Board of Education, with or without the State aid-grant, secures the necessary degree of efficiency, whilst he general character and reputation of the various communities by which the schools are conducted sufficiently guarantees the religious side of their educational work. Government inspectors and public examiners have frequently testified to the excellent moral tone and atmosphere of convent schools and to the cordial relations existing between teachers and pupils, no less than to the high teaching ability of the nuns themselves. The fact that education in its truest sense means something more than mere book-learning is nowhere more fully realized than in the convent school, and results all tend to prove that the religious and moral training imparted in such establishments has in no way acted as a hindrance to the more technical side of educational work. It has sometimes been said that the standard of scholarship attained is not so high in Catholic as in non-Catholic schools of the same class, but however true this may have been in the past, the general levelling up that has taken place during the last ten or twenty years has rendered the reproach an idle one now. The public examination lists of recent years afford ample proof that the leading convent schools are equal in efficiency to all others.

The range of studies pursued in convent secondary schools is a wide one. It includes religious knowledge, English in all its branches, French, Latin, mathematics, science, drawing, needlework, class-singing, and drilling, while such subjects as music, singing, dancing, Greek, German, Italian, elocution, shorthand, book-keeping, dressmaking, cooking, etc., are generally taught as optional extras. Pupils are entered for the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations, the Higher Locals, the Higher and Lower Certificates of the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Examination Board, the Matriculation Examinations of the London and Liverpool Universities, as well as for those of the College of Preceptors, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Royal academy of Music, and the South Kensington School of Art. School buildings and accommodations are of the most up-to-date pattern - one of the necessary conditions for Government recognition. Physical development is provided for by means of hockey, croquet, tennis, cycling, swimming, and gymnastics, according to the particular circumstances of each school.

All the leading educational communities make a special point of having their teachers properly trained and fully qualified. This again is a sine quâ non for official recognition, and the Order in Council of 1902, concerning the registration of secondary teachers, gave fresh impetus to the work of training teachers for convent schools. The principal teaching orders send their subjects usually to one or other of the two Catholic training colleges for secondary teachers (St. Mary's Hall, Liverpool, and Cavendish Squar e, London), or else have them qualify by obtaining one or more of the following: the teaching diploma of the Cambridge Teachers' Training Syndicate, the Oxford diploma for teachers, Women's Honours in Modern Languages (Oxford), the Women's diploma for the Oxford B. A. degree, the LL. A. diploma of St. Andrew's University, the Licentiateship of the College of Preceptors, the Higher Certificate of the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Board, the Higher Local Certificate of Oxford or Cambridge, or a degree at one of the universities that grant degrees to women, e.g. London, Liverpool, or Dublin. Foreign languages are in most cases taught by natives, and in the teaching of many of the special subjects the religious are assisted by extern professors holding the highest qualifications. From these few facts it will be evident that the convent schools of England are adequately keeping pace with the times and that in point of efficiency they are in no way behind non-Catholic schools of the same class, while the facilities that have ben recently brought into existence for the advanced education of Catholic women, religious as well as secular, at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge point to a still higher degree of efficiency for the future.

There are at the present over two hundred Catholic secondary schools in England under the care of representatives of about sixty different religious orders. Chief among these may be mentioned the English Institute of the B. V. M., with six such schools, the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus (eight schools), the Faithful Companions of Jesus (fourteen), the Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur (eighteen), the Religious of St. Andrew (One), the Religious of the Sacred Heart (eight), the Sisters of Mercy (eleven), the Servites (three), and the Ursulines of different congregations (twenty-three). Some of the best known and most successful of these schools are those at York and Cambridge (Inst. Of B. V. M.); Mayfield, St. Leonard's, Preston, Harrogate, and Cavendish Square, London (Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus); Isleworth, Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Clarendon Square, London (Faithful Companions); Liverpool (Mount Pleasant), Northampton, and Norwich (Notre Dame); Streatham (St. Andrew's); Stamford Hill (Servites); and St. Ursula's, Oxford. Many of these secondary schools have attached to them pupil teachers' centres, where valuable preliminary work in the training of elementary schoolmistresses is done, and many of them serve also as "practising schools" in which the students of Catholic and other training colleges give their model lessons in the presence of their instructors and the Government inspectors. The pass and honours lists of the various public examinations in recent years show a very high percentage of candidates from the convent schools and prove conclusively that as far as results go they are fully equal to the best secondary schools under non-Catholic management.

TRAINING COLLEGES

The training colleges are of two kinds - those for the training of primary or elementary schoolmistresses, and those for teachers in secondary schools. Both kinds are under the care of the religious orders. All the Catholic training colleges are recognized by government, and in those for primary teachers the students whose expenses are assisted by a Government grant are known as "King's Scholars", their selection as such being dependent upon a competitive examination under Government auspices. There are six recognized training colleges for primary teachers, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool (under the Sisters of Notre Dame); St. Charles' Square, London and Newcastle-on-Tyne (Religious of the Sacred Heart); Southampton (Nuns of La Sainte Union); Salford (Faithful Companions); and Hull (Sisters of Mercy). In all of these the Government syllabus is followed and the Board of Education certificate is granted after two years' successful teaching in one school, subsequent to the completion of the course at the college. An important part of the training consists in the "criticism lessons", which are given by the students in some secondary school connected with the training college under the direction of the "Mistress of Method", and which are criticized then and there by her as well as by the other students in turn. The best known and largest of these training colleges, which was also the first to be established, is that of Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, under the Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur. It was opened in 1856 with twenty-one students and now numbers one hundred and sixty King's Scholars. It has been (1905) officially affiliated to the Liverpool University and a limited number of its students are allowed to follow the arts or science degree course of the university after the usual two years' Government course has been completed. The whole of the preliminary and certain subjects of the intermediate course can be done at Mount Pleasant under the sisters, which reduces the time of residence required for obtaining the degree. Although this is quite an innovation, it speaks well for the college that five out of the first six sent in obtained the B. A. degree in the minimum period of time.

The training colleges for secondary teachers are St. Mary's Hall, Liverpool, attached to Notre Dame, Mount Pleasant, and established in 1898; and Cavendish Square, London, under the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus, opened in 1895. Both of these are recognized by the Board of Education as well as by the Teachers, Syndicate of the Cambridge University; and the teachers' diploma of that university, necessary for "registration", is granted to successful students at the end of the course. Many of the other teaching orders send their subjects to these colleges, where while following the usual course with other students, special arrangements are made for them to carry out the duties of their religious life and to follow their own rule as far as possible. The theoretical studies include history and methods of education, logic, psychology, ethics, school management, and hygiene, tested by a written examination; and the practical work, taken in the secondary schools attached to the two colleges, is awarded the diploma after one year's practice and a test lesson given before a Government inspector. The syllabus of the Cambridge Syndicate is followed in all subjects except philosophy, for which a course of Catholic philosophy is allowed to be substituted.

Hitherto only Catholic students have been admitted to these colleges, but regulations issued by the Board of Education (which came into force September 1908) require that no qualified student applying for admission may be rejected, if there is room, on the score of religion. The Catholic hierarchy have protested against this and memorialized the prime minster, but the authorities adhere to their decision and rule that no training college failing to comply with these regulations will in future be recognized. The Catholic training colleges had therefore to face the alternative of the introduction of non-Catholic students to the exclusion of Catholics, where numbers are limited, or serious monetary loss through the withdrawal of the State-aided King's Scholars.

HIGHER EDUCATION FOR WOMEN

The higher education of women, in connection with convents, is hardly out of the experimental stage. The university class in the Notre Dame Training College and its affiliation to the Liverpool University have already been mentioned. Up to 1895 Catholics were prohibited (by ecclesiastical authority) from entering the older residential universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the removal in that year of the prohibition favoured men only. Women had to wait still longer; but this restriction was taken away in June 1907, by a decree from Rome, which sanctions under certain condition the opening of houses for women, both secular and religious, at Oxford and Cambridge, to enable them to secure the advantages of a university education. The Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus were the first community to avail themselves of this concession. They have opened a convent at Oxford, recognized and licensed by the University authorities, where twenty secular students and an unlimited number of religious may reside whilst following the university course. St. Ursula's convent, also at Oxford, likewise receives ladies and religious desirous of reading for honours in modern languages or for the B. A. degree examination, which they may do either by attending the university lectures, or by means of private tuition in the convent itself. Women are not eligible for degrees, either at Oxford or at Cambridge, but they are allowed to attend almost all the university lectures and sit for the degree examinations, receiving if successful a diploma instead of the degree itself. It is proposed to establish at Cambridge a college for Catholic women, similar to those of Newnham and Girton, which will probably, in accordance with the desires of Propaganda, be placed under the charge of one of the principal teaching orders. A committee to carry out the project has the Archbishop of Westminster at its head.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND

The convent schools of Ireland and Scotland compare favourably with those of England, and their general character, scope, and conditions being practically similar, they need no further description here. There are in Scotland about ten different orders engaged in secondary education, with upwards of twenty schools under their care, besides two training colleges - one at Glasgow for primary teachers, under the Sisters of Notre Dame, and the other at Edinburgh for secondary teachers, conducted by the Sisters of Mercy. In Ireland the chief teaching orders are the Institute of the B. V. M. (with thirteen convent schools), the Faithful Companions of Jesus (with three schools), the Dominicans, Ursulines, and the St. Louis Nuns, each with several prominent secondary schools. The equivalent in Ireland of recognition and inspection by the Board of Education is the "Intermediate system", introduced in 1878, which produces practically the same results and has been adopted by most of the religious institutes engaged in secondary education. This system arranges examinations and awards medals, money prizes, and exhibitions. Catholic girls wishing to pursue a higher course after completing that of the Intermediate System, have had to take the examinations and degrees of the "Royal University of Ireland". To meet the demand several orders have colleges under their care in Dublin, the most prominent and successful being Loreto College, belonging to the Institute of the B. V. M., and the Dominican college. The Irish educational authorities do not insist on the formal training of secondary teachers; consequently each religious institute is responsible for the training of its own members. The results, however, of their work prove that this is no less thorough and efficient than that obtainable at one of the recognized English training colleges.

There is very little published literature on this subject, but scattered information can be had in ECKENSTEIN, Women under Monasticism (Cambridge, 1896), for the educational work of medieval convents, and STEELE, The Convents of Great Britain (London, 1902), for particulars as to the teaching orders of the present day. Some information may also be found in various articles in The Crucible (Oxford, quarterly, 1905-08) and in the Catholic Directory (London, 1908). The foregoing article has been compiled chiefly from unpublished information supplied by the superiors of the principal teaching orders working in England.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Order of Friars Minor Conventuals

This is one of the three separate bodies, forming with the Friars Minor and the Capuchins what is commonly called the First Order of St. Francis. All three bodies to-day follow the rule of the Friars Minor, but whereas the Friars Minor and the Capuchins profess this rule pure and simple, differing only accidentally in their particular constitutions, the Conventuals observe it with certain dispensations lawfully accorded.

There has been some difference of opinion as to the origin of the name "Conventual". Innocent IV decreed (Bull "Cum tamquam veri", 5 April, 1250) that Franciscan churches where convents existed might be called Conventual churches, and some have maintained that the name "Conventual" was first given to the religious residing in such convents. Others, however, assert that the word Conventualis was used to distinguish the inmates of large convents from those who lived more after the manner of hermits. In any event it seems safe to assert that the term Conventual was not used to signify a distinct section of the Order of Friars Minor in any official document prior to 1431. Since that time, and more especially since 1517, this term has been employed to designate that branch of the Franciscan Order which has accepted dispensations from the substantial observance of the rule in regard to poverty. It may be noted, however, that the name "Conventual" has not been restricted to the Franciscan Order. Thus the statutes of the Camaldolese approved by Leo X distinguish between the Conventuals and the Observants in that order, and St. Pius V (Bull "Superioribus mensibus", 16 April, 1567) says: "That which we have decreed for the Conventuals of the Order of St. Francis we decree likewise for the Conventuals of other orders".

Although all the religious professing the rule of the Friars Minor continued to form one body under the same head for over three hundred years (1209-10 to 1517), it is well known that even during the lifetime of St. Francis a division had shown itself in the ranks of the friars, some favouring a relaxation in the rigour of the rule, especially as regards the observance of poverty, and others desiring to adhere to its literal strictness. The tendency towards relaxation became more marked after the death of the Seraphic founder (1226), and was encouraged by his successor, Brother Elias. The latter, a man of great ability, but whose religious ideals differed vastly from those of St. Francis, even oppressed such as opposed his views. The long and deplorable controversy which followed–a controversy which called forth a mass of remarkable writings and even affected imperial politics–resulted in two parties being formed within the order, the Zelanti, who were zealous for the strict observance of the rule and who were afterwards named Observants, and the fratres de communitate who had adopted certain mitigations and who gradually came to be called Conventuals. In spite of the fact that a cleavage had been gradually developing between these two branches from at least the middle of the fourteenth century, it was only in 1415 at the Council of Constance that the Church authoritatively recognized this division in the order. Hence the Holy See decreed that all the friars who died before that council may not be termed either Observants or Conventuals, but simply Friars Minor (see Decrees of 25 Sept., 1723; 11 Dec., 1723; and 26 Feb., 1737). Notwithstanding this division of the order formally sanctioned in 1415 by the Council of Constance, both Observants and Conventuals continued to form one body under the same head until 1517.

In the latter year Leo X called a general chapter of the whole order at Rome, with a view to effecting a complete reunion between the Observants and Conventuals. The former acceded to the wish of the sovereign pontiff but requested permission to observe the rule without any dispensation; the latter declared they did not wish for the union if it entailed their renouncing the dispensations they had received from the Holy See. Leo X thereupon incorporated with the Observants (Bull "Ite et vos in vineam meam", 29 May, 1517) all the Franciscan friars who wished to observe the rule without dispensation, abolishing the different denominations of Clareni, Colletani, etc.; he decreed that the members of the great family thus united should be called simply Friars Minor of St. Francis, or Friars Minor of the Regular Observance, and should have precedence over the Conventuals; he moreover conferred upon them the right of electing the minister general, who was to bear the title of Minister General of the Whole Order of Friars Minor, and to have the exclusive use of the ancient seal of the order as the legitimate successor of St. Francis. On the other hand, those who continued to live under dispensations were constituted a separate body with the name of Conventuals (Bulls "Omnipotens Deus", 12 June, 1517, and "Licet Alias", 6 Dec., 1517) and given the right to elect a master general of their own, whose election, however, had to be confirmed by the Minister General of the Friars Minor. The latter appears never to have availed himiself of this right, and the Conventuals may be regarded as an entirely independent order from 1517, but it was not until 1580 that they obtained a special cardinal protector of their own. Some years later the masters general of the order began to call themselves "Ministers General". Father Evangelist Pelleo, elected fifteenth master general in 1587, was the first to take this title, which has been generally accorded to his forty-nine successors even in Apostolic letters, though the ordinance of Leo X was neverally formally revoked. Under Sixtus V (1587) the Conventuals attempted to dispute the right of the Minister General of the Friars Minor to the title "Minister General of the Whole Order", but were unsuccessful. They renewed their efforts under Clement VIII (1593 and 1602) but with no greater success. In 1625 they again reopened the question, which was discussed for nearly six years. On 22 March, 1631, the right of the Minister General of the Friars Minor to the title in dispute was solemnly confirmed by the Sacred Congregation of Rules, and Benedict XIII by a Bull of 21 July, 1728, imposed perpetual silence upon the contestants.

In 1565 the Conventuals accepted the Tridentine indult allowing mendicant orders to own property corporately, and their chapter held at Florence in that year drew up statutes contining several important reforms which Pius IV subsequently approved (Bull "Sedis Apostolicæ", 17 Sept., 1565). Three years later St. Pius V (Bull "Ad Extirpandos", 8 June, 1568) sought to enforce a stricter observance of the vow of poverty and of the community life among the Conventuals, and the superiors of the order immediately enacted statutes conformable to his desires, which the pope approved "Bull "Illa nos cura", 23 July, 1568). In 1625 new constitutions were adopted by the Conventuals which superseded all preceding ones. These constitutions, which were subsequently promulgated by Urban VIII (Bull "Militantes Ecclesiæ", 5 May, 1628), are known as the "Constitutiones Urbanæ" and are of primary importance, since at their profession the Conventuals vow to observe the Rule of St. Francis in accordance with them, that is to say, by admitting the duly authorized dispensations therein set forth (see "Constitutiones Urbanæ ordinis fratrum Minorum Sti. Francisci Conventualium", Assisi, 1803). It would therefore be no less false than unjust to regard the Conventuals as less observant of the obligations contracted by their profession than the Friars Minor and Capuchins, since they are not bound by all the obligations assumed by either of the latter. The institution of several communities and even provinces of Reformed Conventuals, more especially between 1562 and 1668 (see "Constituzioni generali de’ frati riformati de’ Minori Conventuali da osservarsi per tutta la riforma, fatte per ordine del Capitulo generale de’ Minori Conventuali celebrato in Orvieto Panno 1611"), affords interesting proof of the vitality of the order, which for the rest has possessed many men of eminent virtue and has rendered important services to the Church.

St. Joseph of Cupertino (d. 1663), one of the greatest saints of the seventeenth century, and Bl. Bonaventure of Potenza (d. 1711) were both Conventuals, and the beatification of several other members of the order is now under way. The Conventuals have, moreover, given three popes to the Church: Sixtus IV (1471-84), Sixtus V (1585-90), and Clement XIV (1769-74), besides a number of cardinals and other distinguished prelates. Among the eminent theologians and scholars the order has produced, the names of Mastrius, Pagi, Brancati, Papini, Sbaralea, and Eubel are perhaps most familiar. The Conventuals enjoy the privilege of guarding the tomb of St. Francis at Assisi and that of St. Anthony at Padua, and they furnish the penitantiaries to the Vatican Basilica and to the sanctuary at Loreto. At Rome they possess the famous church and convent of the Twelve Apostles, and it is here that their general resides. The habit of the Conventuals which was formerly gray is now black–whence they are sometimes called by the people the "Black Franciscans", in contrast to the Friars Minor and Capuchins, whose habit is brown; it consists of a serge tunic fastened around the waist with a thin white cord with three knots; to the large cape, which is round in front and pointed behind, a small hood is attached. Unlike the Friars Minor and the Capuchins, the Conventuals wear birettas and shoes.

In 1517 the Conventuals formed only about a sixth part of the order. After their separation from the Friars Minor, the number of Conventuals diminished considerably. In Spain Cardinal Ximenes was instrumental in depriving them of their convents, which were given to the Friars Minor. Clement VII, 11 June, 1524, ordered the Provincial of the Friars Minor of Burgos to bring back to the Regular Observance all the Conventuals in the Kingdom of Navarre, and St. Pius V, 16 April, 1567, commanded all the Conventuals in Spain to embrace the Regular Observance. Like measures were adopted, 30 October, 1567, in regard to Portugal, where as in Flanders and in Denmark all the Conventuals gradually passed over to the Friars Minor. In France all their provinces save three joined the main branch of the order. Nevertheless the Conventuals continued to prosper in other countries. In Italy and Germany they suffered fewer losses than elsewhere. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they increased very much, for in 1770 they possessed some 31 provinces with 966 convents. In France alone they had 48 convents and numbered 330 religious. In 1771, 8 convents in France including the great convent in Paris, which had since 1517 been subject to the Minister General of the Friars Minor, passed over to the Conventuals, giving them a total of 2620 religious in France alone, but twenty years later their number there had fallen to 1544. Since the revolutionary epoch the order lost more than 1000 houses, principally in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. At present (1907) it is divided into 26 provinces. Of these 12 are in Italy, the others being those of Malta; Gallicia, Russia and Lithuania; Strasburg, comprising Bavaria and Switzerland; Liège, comprising Belgium and Holland; Austria and Styria; Bohemia, with Moravia and Silesia; Hungary and Transylvania; Spain; the United States; Rumania, with the mission of Moldavia; and the Orient, with the mission of Constantinople. The mission of Moldavia, which is one of the oldest in the Seraphic Order, comprises 10 convents with parishes, in which there are 28 missionaries governed by an archbishop belonging to the order. There are also 10 convents and 28 missionaries connected with the mission at Constantinople, where the Apostolic delegate is a Conventual. The order has recently made new foundations in England and Denmark. According to the latest available official statistics (1899), the Conventuals numbered in all some 1500 religious.

At least two Conventual missionaries were labouring in the United States in the early forties, but the establishment of the order there may be said to date from 1850. In 1907 there were two flourishing provinces of the order in the United States, the province of the Immaculate Conception which numbers thirteen convents and houses, those at Syracuse, Louisville, Trenton, Camden, Hoboken, Albany, and Terre Haute being the most important; and the province of St. Anthony of Padua, the members of which are Poles, and which has ten convents and houses in the Dioceses of Baltimore, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Detroit, Harrisburg, Hartford, and Springfield.

The Conventuals were not affected by the Apostolic Constitution "Felicitate quâdam" of Leo XIII (4 Oct., 1897) by which the different special reforms into which the Observants had become divided since 1517 were reunited under the name of Friars Minor, but like the Capuchins (who were constituted a separate body in 1619) they still remain an independent order. Leo XIII, however, expressly confirmed the right of precedence accorded to the Friars Minor by Leo X.

      Wadding, Annales Min. (Rome, 1736), XVI, 41-69; Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome, 1759), I, 338-39; HÉlyot, Dict. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859) in Migne, Encycl., 1st series, XX, 1104-12; Tossinianensi, Hist. Seraph. Religionis libri tres (Venice, 1580) II, 149; De Gubernatis, Orbis Seraphicus (Lyons, 1685), II, lib. IX; Van den Haute, Brevis Hist. Ord. Min. (Rome, 1777), Tr. ii; Patrem, Tableau synoptique de l'hist. de tout l'Ordre Séraphique (Paris, 1879), ch. ii, 48-51; Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907), II, 380-87; Palomes, Dei Frati Minori e delle loro denominazioni (Palermo, 1897), 1-60; De Kerval, S. Francois d'Assise et l'Ordre Séraphique (Paris, 1898), Pt. II, ch. ii; Carmichael, The Franciscan Families in Irish Eccles. Record (March, 1904), 235-254.

Paschal Robinson.

Conversano

DIOCESE OF CONVERSANO (CUPERSANENSIS)

Suffragan to Bari. Conversano, situated in the province of Bari, in Apulia (Southern Italy), is the ancient Cupersanum, a city of the Peucetians. Its history is practically that of Apulia. After the invasion of the Normans, it was for a while the seat of a duchy; later, however, it became a fief of the dukes of Atri. The first bishop whose date is certain was Hilarius, present at the Roman synod of 501. Local tradition, however, preserves the name of a previous bishop, Simplicius, who died in 492. No other names are recorded up to the episcopate of Leo, mentioned in a document of 1088. Other bishops worthy of mention were: the Cistercian Stefano (c. 1266); Giovanni de Gropi (c. 1283); Antonio Guidotti (d. 1433); Paolo de Torcoli, who died in the odour of sanctity in 1482; Romolo de' Valenti (d. 1579); Giuseppe Palermo (who was appointed 1658), Andrea Brancaccia (1681). The diocese has a population of 95,521, with 7 parishes, 130 churches and chapels, 132 secular and 8 regular priests, 2 religious houses of men and 8 of women.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), XXI, 40-45; Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1907), 423-24; MOREA, Il Chartularium di San Benedetto di Conversano (Monte Cassino, 1893), 815-1266

U. BENIGNI

Conversi

Lay brothers in a religious order. The term was originally applied to those who, in adult life, voluntarily renounced the world and entered a religious order to do penance and to lead a life of greater perfection. The renouncing of the world was known as the conversio a sæculo, which had as its object a reform or change of life, the conversio morum, hence conversi or the "converted". The conversi were thus distinguished from the oblati or those who, as children, were presented or offered (oblati) by their parents to the religious life and were placed in a monastery to receive proper religious instruction and to be educated in profane knowledge. In the eleventh century St. John Gualbert, founder of the Benedictine congregation known as the Vallisumbrosani, introduced for the first time a distinction between the fratres conversi, or lay brothers, and priests, or choir religious. For among the conversi there were not seldom those who were either entirely illiterate, or who in the world had led a life of public scandal, or had been notorious criminals, and while on the one hand it was unjust that such should be debarred from the means of doing penance in the cloister and from the other benefits of the religious life, they were at the same time hardly to be considered fit subjects for the reception of Sacred orders. They were thus received into the order for the purpose of engaging in manual labour and occasionally for directing the temporal affairs of the monastery. In modern canonical usage the term conversus is synonymous, or nearly so, with that of lay brother. What has been said of religious orders of men can, in general, be applied equally to those of women, though the distinction between conversæ, or lay sisters, and choir religious does not appear to have been introduced before the twelfth century. As a rule, the conversi wear a habit different from that of the choir religious; but the essential obligations of the vows and of the monastic life in general are alike for all. (See LAY BROTHER and OBLATI.)

KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. For the large share of these conversi, or lay brothers, in the development of medieval agriculture, monastic administration, etc. see HOFFMANN, Das Konverseninstitut des Cisterzienserordens (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1905).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Conversion

(From the classical Latin converto, depon. convertor, whence conversio, change, etc.).

In the Latin Vulgate (Acts 15:3), in patristic (St. Augustine, Civ. Dei, VIII, xxiv), and in later ecclesiastical Latin, conversion refers to a moral change, a turning or returning to God and to the true religion, in which sense it has passed into our modern languages. (For example, the "conversions" of St. Paul, of Constantine the Great, and of St. Augustine.) In the Middle Ages the word conversion was often used in the sense of forsaking the world to enter the religious state. Thus St. Bernard speaks of his conversion. The return of the sinner to a life of virtue is also called a conversion. More commonly do we speak of the conversion of an infidel to the true religion, and most commonly of the conversion of a schismatic or heretic to the Catholic Church.

Every man is bound by the natural law to seek the true religion, embrace it when found, and conform his life to its principles and precepts. And it is a dogma of the Church defined by the Vatican Council that man is able by the natural light of reason to arrive at the certain knowledge of the existence of the one true God. our Creator and Lord. The same council teaches that faith is a gift of God necessary for salvation, that it is an act of the intellect commanded by the will, and that it is a supernatural act. The act of faith then is an act of the understanding, whereby we firmly hold as true whatever God has revealed, not because of its intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed it. It is in itself an act of the understanding, but it requires the influence of the will which moves the intellect to assent. For many of the truths of revelation, being mysteries, are to some extent obscure. Yet, it is not a blind act, since the fact that God has spoken is not merely probable but certain. The evidences for the fact of revelation are not, however. the motive of faith; they are the grounds which render revelation credible, that is to say, they make it certain that God has spoken. And since faith is necessary for salvation, that we may comply with the duty of embracing the true Faith and persevering in it, God by His only-begotten Son has instituted the Church and has adorned it with obvious marks so that it may be known by all men as the guardian and teacher of revealed truth. These marks (or notes) of credibility belong to the Catholic Church alone. Nay, the Church itself by its admirable propagation, sublime sanctity, and inexhaustible fecundity, by its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and irrefragable testimony of its Divine mission (see Conc. Vatic., De Fide, cap. 3).

The first step, therefore, in the normal process of conversion is the investigation and examination of the credentials of the Church, which often is a painful labor lasting for years. The external grace which draws a man's attention to the Church and causes him to begin his inquiry is as various and manifold as there are individual inquirers. It may even be something to one's temporal advantage, which was the case with Henry IV of France. It may be the interest aroused in a great historical personage, such as Innocent III, in the case of Friedrich von Hurter. Whatever may have been the initial motive. if the study be pursued with an open mind, we hold that it will lead to the knowledge of the true Church, i.e. to this certain conclusion: The Catholic Church is the true Church. This intellectual conviction. however, is not yet the act of faith. One may hesitate, or refuse to take the next step, which is the "good will to believe" (pius credulitatis affectus). And this leads to the third and final act, the act of faith itself: I believe what the Church teaches because God has revealed it. These three acts, especially the last, are, in accordance with Catholic teaching, supernatural acts. Then follows baptism by which the believer is formally received into the body of the Church. (See BAPTISM, VII, VIII.)

Since the duty of embracing the true religion is of natural and positive Divine right, it is evident that no civil law can forbid the fulfilling of this duty, nor should any temporal considerations be allowed to interfere with a duty on which depends the soul's salvation. And because all are bound to enter the Church, it follows that the Church has a right to receive all who apply for reception, of whatever age, sex, or condition they may be. Nay, in virtue of the Divine command to preach the Gospel to every creature, the Church is strictly bound to receive them, and no earthly authority can forbid the exercise of this duty. To the Church alone it belongs to lay down the conditions for reception and to inquire into the interior dispositions of him who presents himself for admission into her bosom. The conditions are, knowledge and profession of the Catholic Faith and the resolve to live in accordance with it. The right to admit converts into the Church belongs strictly speaking to the bishop. Usually all priests exercising the sacred ministry receive faculties for reconciling heretics. When conditional baptism is administered, sacramental confession is also required from the convert. It is the law clearly laid down in the Acts of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The order of proceedings is as follows:

• first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith;
• second, conditional baptism;
• third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution. (Tit. V, Cap. II, n. 240.)

Force, violence, or fraud may not be employed to bring about the conversion of an unbeliever. Such means would be sinful. The natural law, the law of Christ, the nature of faith, the teaching and practice of the Church forbid such means. Credere voluntatis est, to believe depends upon the free will, says St. Thomas (II-II:10:8), and the minister of baptism, before administering the sacrament, is obliged to ask the question, "Wilt thou be baptized"? And only after having received the answer, "I will", may he proceed with the sacred rite. The Church also forbids the baptism of children of unbaptized parents without the consent of the latter, unless the children have been cast away by their parents, or are in imminent danger of death. For the Church has no jurisdiction over the unbaptized, nor does the State possess the power of using temporal means in spiritual things. The punishments formerly decreed against apostates were not intended to coerce men to accept outwardly what they did not believe in their hearts, but to atone for a crime (see the article of St. Thomas, loc. cit.). The medieval legislation, both ecclesiastical and secular, clearly distinguished between the punishment to be inflicted for the crime of apostasy and the means of instruction to be used in order to bring about the resipiscence of the apostate. As Bishop von Ketteler says, "The punishment inflicted by the Church upon heretics in comparatively few cases was not based upon the false principle that conviction could be forced upon the mind by external means, but upon the truth that by baptism the Christian has assumed obligations the fulfillment of which could be insisted upon. This punishment was only inflicted in particular cases and upon public and formal heretics." Convert parents like other Catholics are obliged to have their children baptized and educated in the Catholic religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America proclaims complete separation of Church and State and guarantees full liberty of conscience. In consequence the laws of these States place no hindrance whatever in the way of conversions. It may also be said that on the whole the American people are socially tolerant towards converts. No wonder that in this country's conversions are comparatively more numerous than in most others. In the British Empire too, since the days of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, liberty of conscience prevails in theory as well as in practice, although there exists both in England and Scotland an established Church. Catholic disabilities have been almost entirely removed. Catholics are only excluded from the throne and from a few of the highest offices of the State. In Germany after the Reformation the tyrannical principle cujus regio, illius religio was proclaimed, in virtue of which the sovereign for the time being could impose his religion upon his subjects. He exercised the power both to forbid conversions to the Catholic Church, and to compel apostasy from it. In present-day Germany, liberty of conscience is the law of the land. And although some union of Church and State exists, conversion does not involve any disabilities or the loss of any civil or political rights. Formerly, however, most of the states prescribed the age before which conversions were not lawful, which was either fourteen or sixteen, or even eighteen. In Saxony, Brunswick, and Mecklenburg, the public exercise of the Catholic religion historically was subjected to vexatious interference. In Russia the Orthodox Church is the State religion. Other denominations are only tolerated. Under the czars, conversion from the Orthodox Church to Catholicism was followed by grievous disabilities. By the ukase of 1905 certain rights and liberties were granted to other denominations. The publication of the ukase was immediately followed by the return to the Catholic Church of many Eastern Catholics who had been forced into schism by persecution. The Scandinavian countries were very intolerant till about the middle of the nineteenth century. Denmark gave liberty to the Catholic Church in 1849, Sweden and Norway in 1860.

B. GULDNER

Convocation of the English Clergy

The technical name given in the Church of England to what corresponds in some respects to a provincial synod, though in other respects it differs widely from it. The two ecclesiastical provinces of Canterbury and York have each their Convocation, but that of Canterbury is the more important, and is spoken of as "Convocation" par excellence. The history of its external constitution is continuous down to the present time and is bound up with the development of English constitutional history; its powers and independence, however, were lost at the Reformation; its organization, retained as a mere form for many years, has been utilized of late to give expression to the opinions entertained by the clergy as a body upon questions of the day. Thus it exercises influence, but has no power. The authority of the Crown asserted at the Reformation is still supreme and intact.

The history of Convocation may be divided into five periods: (1) Before 1295; (2) From 1295 until the Reformation; (3) The Reformation period; (4) The post-Reformation period; (5) Modern times.

(1) Before 1295

Previous to 1295 the Church in England had assembled in diocesan and provincial synods to regulate disciplinary and other matters interesting the body of the clergy. Moreover the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors used to take their place in the national council on account of the estates they held in chief (in capite) of the Crown. But the beneficed clergy took no part in it. The increasing frequency of royal appeals for money grants and the unwillingness of the bishops to be responsible for allowing them had brought Stephen Langton, as early as 1225, to summon proctors of cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches to attend his provincial synod, and gradually that representative principle became part of the system of Convocation. The failure of the irregular attempt of Edward I to convoke the clergy at Northampton led him to issue (1283) a writ to the Archbishop with a view to Convocation meeting in London in that same year, and at that meeting a "benevolence" was duly voted. The form of writ used in 1283 is the same in form as that still in use, and the instructions issued on that occasion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Peckham, still embody the existing constitution of Convocation, so that, with the exception of the disappearance of the monastic representatives, the external organization of Convocation remains unchanged.

(2) After 1295

In addition to the Baronage and Commons of the realm we find, after 1295, a representative body of the beneficed clergy summoned to attend personally in Parliament, the summons being conveyed by the insertion, in the bishop's writ of summons to Parliament, of the proemunientes clause. That summons was the beginning of a new phase in the long struggle waged by the Crown on the subject of the taxation of the clergy. It was to facilitate the obtaining of money grants that Edward I endeavoured once more to unite representatives of the clergy and laity in one deliberative assembly, composed on the basis of temporal property. To have countenanced the attempt would have been to recognize the Crown's claim to tax church property, and the clergy insisted upon their constitutional right of making their money grants in Convocation. The struggle between the Crown and the clergy continued until 1337, when the Crown gave way, though retaining the proemunientes clause in the bishop's writ of summons. Authorities differ as to whether the Parliamentary proctors of the clergy sat in the Lower House or in the Upper House; most probably they sat and voted in the Lower House.

The question of the exact relation of Convocation to the newer Parliamentary representatives of the clergy is obscure; nor is the obscurity lessened by the fact that the proctors of the clergy for Convocation were frequently the same persons as the proctors of the clergy for Parliament. Two opinions have found defenders: the first, that the older ecclesiastical council fused with the Parliamentary representatives of the clergy; the other, that by the process of gradual decay of Parliamentary representation of the clergy, part of their rights passed to the ecclesiastical councils, thus giving rise to the historical connexion between the Convocations and Parliament. The latter view, ably advocated by Stubbs, at present holds the field.

The division of Convocation into an Upper and a Lower House came about gradually, and was not formed, as is sometimes supposed, on the model of the two Houses of Parliament. In 1296 the members of Convocation resolved themselves for deliberative purposes into four groups: bishops, monastic representatives, dignitaries, and proctors of the clergy. Eventually Convocation came to open with a joint session presided over by the archbishop, after which the bishops and abbots remained to deliberate as the Upper House, while the rest withdrew to deliberate as the Lower House.

The objection of the clergy to sitting in Parliament lessened indeed their influence over that body; at the same time they secured the right of meeting when Parliament met, and that right of meeting involved the right of petitioning and to some extent of legislating for themselves. That idea of Convocation as the clerical parliament had important consequences; the right to tax church property was successfully maintained; but the clergy could neither elect nor be elected to the House of Commons, and to this day a person in Holy orders is ineligible for Parliament. At the same time the legislation of Convocation was binding on the clergy only and not upon the laity.

(3) The Reformation Period

Convocation lost its independence and most of its powers by the Act of Submission [25 Hen. VIII (1533-4), c. 19], which enacts that Convocation can only meet by royal command, and that without royal leave and licence no new canons, constitutions, or ordinances may be made. This act was repealed in Queen Mary's reign, but revived by 1 Eliz. (1558-9), and still remains in full force. The climax of Convocation's degradation was reached when, after the Act of Supremacy (1534), Thomas Cromwell, the representative of Henry VIII, though a layman, asserted his right to preside, a right never subsequently exercised.

(4) Post-Reformation Period

The Act of Submission of Henry VIII was stringently interpreted by the judges at a committee before the Lords in Parliament (in 8 Jac., 1) as forbidding, even after obtaining royal assent, any canon (a) against the prerogative of the king; (b) against common law; (c) against any statute law; or (d) against any custom of the realm. The loss of legislative independence paved the way for the loss of taxing powers, which were finally renounced in 1665, the right of voting at Parliamentary elections being obtained in return. The power of Convocation of dealing with cases of heresy has been exercised but rarely, and then to no purpose. It continued to be convoked at the beginning of each Parliament, but its sittings were interrupted from 1640 to 1660, to be resumed after the Restoration. In 1689, in view of the opposition of the clergy to the Toleration Act of William and Mary, no summons was issued to Convocation. The Commons, however, protested against the innovation, and their petition had its effect; at the same time Archbishop Tillotson, and to some extent his successor Tenison, met the difficulties of the situation by refusing to allow any deliberations. Convocation was summoned, met, and was prorogued. Parties were formed, and claims were made, insisting upon the independence of the Lower House on the analogy of the House of Commons. Atterbury led the malcontents; Wake, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, Kennet, Hoadley, and Gibson led the defence. The question was really a political one. Toryism dominated the Lower House; Liberalism, alike in politics and theology, pervaded the Upper House. Permission to deliberate led to trouble in 1701, and prorogation followed. The Bangorian Controversy arising out of Hoadly's sermon led to similar results in 1717. The opposition of the Lower House was worn out by repeated prorogations immediately following the opening session, and with the exception of the discussions allowed in 1741 and 1742, Convocation ceased to be a deliberative body until 1854.

(5) Modern Times

The old organization had survived, and many earnest Anglicans of the early nineteenth century, anxious to revive the synodal life of the Anglican Church, sought and obtained the relaxation of the customary immediate prorogation. A brief session was authorized in 1854. (The example was followed by York in 1859.) The action of Convocation as a deliberative body began in 1861, when, at its own request, the Crown licensed it to amend the twenty-ninth of the canons of 1603 on the subject of sponsors, and although no result followed, new canons were passed in 1865, 1887, and again in 1892.

Apart from such general authorizations the Crown also possesses the right to submit definite business to the consideration of Convocation. This is done by "Special Letters of Business", a method used in 1872, and again in 1907, in submitting the reports of the ritual commissioners to its consideration.

The House of Laymen, which first met in connexion with the Convocation of Canterbury in 1886 (York, 1892), is an assembly unknown to law. As at present constituted the two Convocations of Canterbury and York are summoned by the archbishops on the instruction of the king when Parliament is summoned. Each possesses an Upper and a Lower House; the Upper House, presided over by the archbishops, consists of the diocesan bishops; the Lower House is composed of deans, archdeacons, a proctor for each chapter, and proctors for the beneficed clergy, two from each diocese in the province of Canterbury, two from each archdeaconry in the province of York. The Lower House elects a prolocutor who, on being presented to the archbishop and approved by him, presides over the deliberations of the Lower House, and communicates the results to the Upper house. The stately ceremonial of Catholic days has been preserved for the opening session of Convocation, together with the use of the Latin tongue.

GIBSON, Synodus Anglicana (1702), ed. CARDWELL (London, 1854); WAKE, The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods (London, 1697); KENNET, Ecclesiastical Synods (London, 1701); HOADLEY, A History of English Councils and Convocation and of the Clergy sitting in Parliament (London, 1701); TREVOR, The Convocation of the Two Provinces (London, 1852); LATHBURY, A History of the Convocation of the Church of England (2nd ed., London, 1853); JOYCE, England's Sacred Synods (London, 1853); LINGARD, History of England, passim; STUBBS, The Constitutional History of England (London, 1878); IDEM, Select Charters (8th ed., London, 1895); MAKOWER, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England, tr. from German (London, 1895); PHILLIMORE, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd ed, London, 1895) GEE AND HARDY, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London, 1896); HENSON, Our National Church (London, 1908).

EDWARD MYERS

Henry Conwell

Second Bishop of Philadelphia, U.S.A., b. at Moneymore, County Derry, Ireland, in 1745; d. at Philadelphia, 22 April, 1842. After the death of Bishop Egan, in 1814, the Bishopric of Philadelphia was offered successively to the Rev. Ambrose Marechal and to the Very Rev. Louis de Barth, the administrator, but both these clergymen, deterred by the contumacious attitude of the trustees of St. Mary's church, returned the Bulls; whereupon the Holy See appointed (26 Nov., 1819) Henry Conwell, parish priest of Dungannon and Vicar-General of Armagh, Ireland, who imprudently accepted a task too heavy for his seventy four years. He had made his studies in the Irish College at Paris, where his family had founded a burse. He was universally beloved by his people and the clergy, and an ineffectual attempt was made to retain him in Ireland. He was consecrated in London by Bishop Poynter, 24 Aug., 1820, and arrived in Philadelphia, 2 Dec., bringing with him a young priest named Keenan, subsequently for many years pastor at Lancaster. The seeds of future troubles had been sown during the vacancy, when the administrator, without demanding credentials, stationed at St. Mary's the brilliant but demagogic and unpriestly Rev. William Hogan, who had so ingratiated himself with the board of trustees that when, on 12 Dec., the bishop revoked his faculties, a schism ensued which lasted for many years. For details of the quarrel, the reader is referred to J. Gilmary Shea's "History of the Catholic Church in the United States" (see below). Bishop Conwell conducted the controversy with dignity, but in the course of it, through desire of peace, committed two errors of judgment. The first was the recalling to the diocese and appointing as vicar-general of William Vincent Harold, a Dominican whom his predecessor had dismissed. Contrary to the bishop's expectation, the return of Harold complicated the situation. It was a more serious mistake that on 9 Oct., 1826, he capitulated to the trustees, yielding to them the right of determining salaries and of vetoing his appointments. Highly displeased at this surrender of episcopal rights, the Holy See appointed an administrator and summoned the bishop to Rome. His explanations were pronounced unsatisfactory and he was forbidden to return to his see. He did return to Philadelphia and received permission to perform episcopal functions, without interfering in matters of administration. In 1830 Francis Patrick Kenrick arrived as coadjutor and administrator, and Bishop Conwell spent his remaining years in seclusion and prayer.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Conza

(Compsana)

Archdiocese with the perpetual administration of Campagna (Campaniensis). Conza, a city of the province of Avellino, Southern Italy, on the River Ofanto (the ancient Aufidus), was formerly called Compsa, and belonged to the Hirpini, allies of the Samnites during their wars with the Romans. It was captured in 213 B.C. by Fabius Maximus and was made a Roman colony. During the Second Punic War it was betrayed to Hannibal (214 B.C.) and opened the way to Capua. The city was twice destroyed by earthquakes (980, 1694), and was at one time nearly abandoned. The first known Bishop of Conza is Pelagius, who was present at the Roman synod of 743 held under Pope Zachary. The see was raised to the rank of an archbishopric under Alexander II or Gregory VII (i.e. between 1061 and 1085), having previously been a suffragan of Salerno. Among the bishops worthy of mention is the Blessed Erberto (1169). The bishops resided either in their feudal stronghold of San Menna, at Campagna, or at Sant' Angelo de' Lombardi, the present episcopal residence. The Diocese of Campagna was erected by Clement VII, 19 June, 1525; the see was vacant from 1793 to 1818, when it was placed under Conza. The dioceses together have a population of 123,000, with 37 parishes, 230 churches and chapels, 232 secular and 10 regular priests, 3 religious houses of men and 5 of women.

CAPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), XX, 531; Ann. eccl. (Rome, 1907), 424-26.

U. BENIGNI

Cooktown

The Vicariate Apostolic of Cooktown comprises North Queensland, Australia, from 16°30' south latitude to Cape York, and from the Pacific Coast to the boundary of Northern Territory. It was formed out of the Diocese of Brisbane, as a pro-vicariate in 1876, was first entrusted to Italian priests, who subsequently withdrew, and, in 1882, to the Irish Augustinians (Father John Hutchinson, Pro-Vicar). In 1887 the mission was created a vicariate apostolic, and Dr. Hutchinson was appointed its first vicar. He died 28 October, 1897, and was succeeded by the Right Rev. James D. Murray, consecrated 3 July, 1898. The administrative centre of the vicariate is at Cairns.

Statistics to close of 1907

Parochial districts, 7; stations, 32; churches, 18; regular priests, 11; nuns, 24; boarding school, 1; primary schools, 3; children attending Catholic schools, 470; Catholic population, about 6000.

MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s.d.): Australasian Catholic Directory (Sydney, 1908).

HENRY W. CLEARY

William Henry Coombes

Born 8 May, 1767; died 15 November, 1850. He passed his early years at Meadgate, Somersetshire, England, the property and for many years the residence of his uncle, Rev. William Coombes (d. 18 April, 1822), of Douai College, Grand-Vicar of the Western District. Young Coombes went to Douai at the age of twelve, was ordained in 1791, and during the French Revolution escaped (October, 1793) from Dourlens to England. He was a doctor of theology and co-operated earnestly with Bishop Douglass at Old Hall seminary as professor and vice-president. From 1810 he served the mission of Shepton Mallet till 1849, when he retired to Downside monastery, where he died. He is described as a spiritual and self-denying priest, an eminent scholar and theologian. His chief works are: "Sacred Eloquence; being Discourses from the Writings of Sts. Basil and Chrysostom, with the Letters of St. Eucherius of Lyons" (London, 1798); "Escape from France; with an account of the English Poor Clares from Aire, and a narrative of the sufferings and death of Pius VI" (London, 1799); "Life of St. Francis de Sales, from the French of Marsollier" (Shepton Mallet, 1812); "Spiritual Entertainments of St. Francis de Sales" (Taunton, 1814); "The Essence of Religious Controversy" (1827); "Life of St. Jane Frances de Chantal" (London, 1830). There survive certain other writings by Coombes on religious and political themes.

OLIVER, Collectanea, 272; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I. 558; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 109.

PATRICK RYAN

Copacavana

(Also called COPACABANA)

A village of about four hundred people, Indians chiefly, on the shore of Lake Titicaca, province of Omasuyos, in northern Bolivia. It is the location of a famous sanctuary dedicated to Our Lady of Carmel, and of a convent of Franciscan Recollects. During the wars of independence it was despoiled of most of its rich ornaments and gifts, and ruthless plundering by faithless custodians in the course of political disturbances has further contributed to impoverish it. The edifices, originally very handsome, are in a state of sad neglect. It is a shrine for pilgrims from Bolivia and southern Peru, and on 6 August the feast of its patron saint is frequented by thousands. Before 1534 Copacavana was an outpost of Inca occupation and perhaps the only one on Bolivian soil of any prominence. The Incas held it as the key to the very ancient shrine and oracle on the Island of Titicaca, which they had adopted as a place of worship, yielding to the veneration in which it stood among the Aymara from time almost immemorial. There were at Copacavana minor shrines, in which the ceremonial of the Incas was observed with that of the original inhabitants. When the Spaniards first visited the Islands of Titicaca and Loati, in 1534 and 1538, the primitive cults were abandoned and the Dominicans made Copacavana the centre of their missions. Secular priests then replaced them at the instigation of the Viceroy Francisco de Toledo, and finally the mission and its annexes were entrusted to the Augustinians in 1589.

In 1582 an Indian from Copacavana, struck by the sight of the statues of the Blessed Virgin which he saw in some of the churches at La Paz, tried to make one himself, and after many failures, succeeded in producing one of fair workmanship for an untrained native, and it was placed at Copacavana as the statue of the tutelar protectress of the community. Many miracles have been attributed to it, and its fame has spread far beyond the limits of its surroundings. It is kept in a special chapel, where the Indians are untiring in their devotions. The jewels with which it is adorned are perhaps the only ones in the church that have not been replaced by modern imitations. During the uprising of the Indians in 1781, while the church itself was desecrated, the "Camarin", as the chapel is called, remained untouched and exempt from spoliation. Copacavana is the scene of often repulsively boisterous Indian celebrations. On the 2d of February and 6th of August, Church festivals furnish the pretext for Indian dances that the clergy have not yet been able entirely to reform. The mixture of the old Pagan with the Christian is interesting, although a source of mortification to the Bolivian clergy, who are as yet unable to modify it. Copacavana is surrounded by pre-Columbian ruins of considerable interest.

AD. F. BANDELIER

Cope

(Known in Latin as pluviale or cappa), a vestment which may most conveniently be described as a long liturgical mantle, open in front and fastened at the breast with a band or clasp. As existing monuments show, whether we look at pictorial representations or at the copes of early date which still survive, there has been remarkably little change in the character of the vestment from the earliest ages. Then as now it was made of a piece of silk or cloth of semicircular shape, and, as it is important to note, it differed from the earlier form of chasuble only in this, that in the chasuble the straight edges were sewn together in front while in the cope they were left open. The most conspicuous external modification which the cope has undergone, during the past thousand years and more, lies in a certain divergence in the shape of the hood, a feature which, after all, is not in any way an essential part of the vestment. In some early examples we find only a triangular hood, which was no doubt intended to of practical utility in covering the head in processions, etc. But with the lapse of time the hood has into a mere ornamental appendage, and it is quite commonly represented by a sort of shield of embroidery, artificially stiffened and sometimes adorned with a fringe, the whole being fastened by buttons or by some other device to the back of the below the broad orphrey which usually forms an upper border to the whole. The fact that in many early chasubles, as depicted in the drawings of the eighth and ninth centuries, we see clear traces of a primitive hood, thus bearing out the explicit statement upon the point of Isidore of Beville, strongly confirms the view that in their origin cope and chasuble were identical, the chasuble being only a cope with its edges sewn together.

History

The earliest mention of a cappa seems to meet us in Gregory of Tours, and in the "Miracula" of St. Furseus where it seems to mean a cloak with a hood. So from a letter written in 787 by Theodemar, Abbot of Monte Cassino, in answer to a question of Charlemagne about the dress of the monk (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist. Carol., II, 512) we learn that what in Gaul was styled cuculla (cowl) was known to the Cassinese monks as cappa. Moreover the word occurs more than once in Alcuin's correspondence, apparently as denoting a garment for everyday wear. When Alcuin twice observes about a casula which was sent him, that he meant to wear it always at Mass, we may probably infer that such garments at this date were not distinctively liturgical owing to anything in their material or construction, but that they were set aside for the use of the altar at the choice of the owner, who might equally well have used them as part of his ordinary attire. In the case of the chasuble the process of liturgical specialization, if we may so call it, was completed at a comparatively early date, and before the end of the ninth century the maker of a casula probably knew quite well in most cases whether he intended his handiwork for a Mass vestment or for an everyday outer garment. But in the case of a cappa, or cope, this period of specialization seems to have been delayed until much later. The two hundred capp or cope, which we read in a Saint-Riquier inventory in the year 801, a number increased to 377 by the year 831, were, we believe, mere cloaks, for the most part of rude material and destined for common wear. It may be that their use in choir was believed to add to the decorum and solemnity of the Divine Office, especially in the winter season. In 831 one of the Saint-Riquier copes is specially mentioned as being of chestnut colour and and embroidered with gold. This, no doubt, implies use by a dignitary, but it does not prove that it was as yet regarded as a sacred vestment. In fact, if we follow the conclusions of Mr. Edmund Bishop (Dublin Review, Jan., 1897), who was the first to sift the evidence thoroughly, it was not until the twelfth century that the cope, made of rich material, was in general use in the ceremonies of the Church, at which time it had come to be regarded as the special vestment of cantors. Still, an ornamental cope was even then considered a vestment that might be used by any member of the clergy from the highest to the lowest, in fact even by one who was only about to be tonsured. Amongst monks it was the practice to vest the whole community, except, of course, the celebrant and the sacred ministers, in copes at high Mass on the greatest festivals, whereas on feasts of somewhat lower grade, the community were usually vested in albs. In this movement the Netherlands, France, and Germany had taken the lead, as we learn from extant inventories. For example, already in 870, in the Abbey of Saint Trond we find "thirty-three precious copes of silk" as against only twelve chasubles, and it was clearly the Cluny practice in the latter part of the tenth century to vest all the monks in copes during high Mass on the great feasts, though in England the regulations of St. Dunstan and St. Æthelwold show no signs of any such observance. The custom spread to the secular canons of such cathedrals as Rouen, and cantors nearly everywhere used copes of silk as their own peculiar adornment in the exercise of their functions.

Meanwhile the old cappa nigra, or cappa choralis, a choir cope of black stuff, open or partly open in front, and commonly provided with a hood, still continued in use. It was worn at Divine Office by the clergy of cathedral and collegiate churches and also by many religious, as, for example, it is retained by the Dominicans during thc winter months down to the present day. (See COSTUME, CLERICAL.) No doubt the "copes" of the friars, to which we find so many references in the Wycliffite literature and in the writings of Chaucer and Langland, designate their open mantles, which were, we may say, part of their full dress, though not always black in colour. On the other hand we may note that the cappa clausa, or close cope, was simply a cope or cape sewn up in front for common outdoor use. "The wearing of this", says Mr. Bishop, (loc. cit., p. 24), "instead of the 'cappa scisssa', the same cope not sewn up, is again and again enjoined on the clergy by synods and statutes during the late Middle Ages." The cappa magna, now worn according to Roman usage by cardinals, bishops, and certain specially privileged prelates on occasions of ceremony, is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but is only a glorified cappa choralis, or choir cope. Its colour for cardinals is ordinarily red, and for bishops violet. It is ample in volume and provided with a long train and a disproportionately large hood, the lining of which last, ermine in winter and silk in summer, is made to show like a tippet across the breast. Further we must note the papal mantum, which differs little from an ordinary cope except that it is red in colour and somewhat longer. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the immantatio, or bestowal of the mantum on the newly elected pope, was regarded as specially symbolical of investiture with papal authority. "Investio te de-papatu romano ut pr sis urbi et orbi" were the words used in conferring it (I invest thee with the Roman papacy, that thou rule over the city and the world).

Modern Use

Under all these different forms the cope has not substantially changed its character or shape. It was a vestment for processions, and one worn by all ranks of the clergy when assisting at a function, but never employed by the priest and his sacred ministers in offering the Holy Sacrifice. At the present day it is still, as the "Cæremoniale" directs, worn by cantors on certain festal occasions in the solemn Office; but it is also the vestment assigned to the celebrant, whether priest or bishop, in almost all functions in which the chasuble is not used, for example in processions, in the greater blessings and consecrations, at solemn Vespers and Lauds, in giving Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, at the absolutions and burial of the dead, at the Asperges before Mass, etc. At a pontifical high Mass it is worn by the assistant priest who especially attends upon the bishop. As regards colour the cope follows that of the day, and it may be made of any rich or becoming material. Owing to its ample dimensions and unvarying shape, ancient copes are preserved to us in proportionately greater numbers than other vestments and provide the finest specimens of medieval embroidery we possess. Among these the Syon Cope in the South Kensington Museum, London, and the Ascoli Cope are remarkable as representing the highest excellence of that specially English thirteenth-century embroidery known as the opus anglicanum. We are also indebted to the use of copes for some magnificent specimens of the jeweller's craft. The brooch or clasp, meant to fasten the cope in front, and variously called morse, pectoral, bottone, etc., was an object often in the highest degree precious and costly. The work which was the foundation of all the fortunes of Benvenuto Cellini was the magnificent morse which he made for Pope Clement VII. (See CELLINI, BENVENUTO.) Some admirable examples of these clasps still survive.

Besides the minor articles which are devoted to this subject in the ecclesiastical encyclopedias and works on archeology, we may note the exhaustive work of BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung (Frieburg, 1907), 306-358, also the very thorough discussion of EDMUND BISHOP in Dublin Review (Jan., 1897), 17-38; and THALHOFER, Lilurgik, I, 887. For some magnificent illustrations of copes, see especially DE FARCY, La Broderie, (Angers, 1890), and also ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe (Paris, 1889), 1889), VIII, 1-17.

HERBERT THURSTON

University of Copenhagen

It was founded by a Bull which Sixtus IV issued 19 June, 1475, at the request of King Christian I. This Bull authorized the primate, the Archbishop of Lund, to establish a university in any place selected by the king; and the latter, by letters patent of 4 Oct., 1478, laid the foundation at Copenhagen. The Bishop, Dean, and Provost of Roskild and the Dean of Copenhagen were appointed conservators. The statutes, drawn up by the Archbishop of Lund and promulgated 28 Nov., 1479, followed closely those of Cologne. From Cologne also the new university received its first professors. The most distinguished among these, before the Reformation, was the Carmelite, Povel Helgesen (Paul Helia, q. v.) writer of important controversial and historical works. Both he and Bishop Lage Urne, chancellor of the university, vigorously opposed the advances of Protestantism in Denmark. The university suffered severely during the religious upheaval, but was reorganized under King Christian III by the Lutheran theologian, Johann Bugenhagen (1539), called for that purpose from Wittenberg. In the conflagration of 1728 the university buildings were almost totally destroyed, but were at once restored by King Christian VI (1732). Notable among the professors during the modern period are Holberg, Oehlenschlager, Rask, Madvig, and Oersted. The university comprises at present the faculties of theology, law, medicine, philosophy, and sciences, with 97 professors and about 2000 students. The library contains 350,000 volumes and 6500 manuscripts.

RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895), II, 291; MATZEN, Kiobenhavns Universitets, Retshistorie (Copenhagen, 1879); RORDAM, Kiobenhavns Universitets historie fra 1537 til 1621 (Copenhagen, 1868-74).

E. A. PACE.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Latinized form of Niclas Kopernik, the name of the founder of the heliocentric planetary theory; born at Torun (Thorn), 19 February, 1473, died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543.

Early life

Whether the family came originally from Silesia or from Poland, certain it is that his father Niclas, a merchant, emigrated from Krakow to Torun, and married the sister of Lucas Watzelrode, later Prince-Bishop of Ermland. Of the four children the oldest and youngest, Andreas and Nicolaus, adopted the clerical career, while the older girl became a Cistercian nun and Abbess of Culm, and the younger married. The whole family belonged to the Third Order of St. Dominic. Nicolaus was hardly ten years old when his father died. His uncle, Lucas, however, took charge of the children and gave the boys a university training.

Nicolaus Nicolai de Thorunia was matriculated in Krakow in 1491, where he studied classics, mathematics, drawings, and perspective. Professor Blar, who represented astronomy, belonged to the school of Ptolemy. The bishop, himself a former student of Bologna, sent the boys to Italy. In 1497 Nicolaus was enrolled in the University of Bologna as of German nationality and a student in canon law. He also studied Greek and became a disciple of Novara, then professor of astronomy. To obtain for his nephews the necessary support, the bishop procured their election as canons by the chapter of Frauenburg (1497-1498).

In the spring of 1500 the brothers went from Bologna to Rome for the jubilee. According to George Joachim, surnamed "Rheticus" (because a native of Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia) and his friend Achilles Gasser, Copernicus gave astronomical lectures in the Eternal City, and it was there that he awoke to his vocation of founding a new astronomy. The brothers obtained from the chapter of Frauenburg a two years' leave of absence to continue their studies. From 1501 to 1503 Nicolaus was in Padua and Ferrara studying medicine and jurisprudence. In Ferrara he took his degree of Doctor of Canon Law but no document is found of his graduating in medicine. His proficiency in that profession was, however, later evinced by his renown as a physician at the episcopal court of Heilsberg, where his uncle resided.

After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506-1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood. After the death of his uncle, in 1512, Copernicus went to Frauenburg for the election of the new bishop, and remained there until 1516, when he was nominated administrator of the diocesan castle of Allenstein. His term of four years being over, he returned to the chapter in Frauenburg. Three years later the bishop died, and Copernicus became administrator of the diocese. While the quiet life at Heilsberg had left him enough leisure to publish a Latin translation of the Greek letters of Theophylactus (1509), his public offices gradually drew him into the study of finance. In 1522 he wrote a memorandum on monetary reforms, which five years later grew into a Latin treatise. It was so highly thought of that the King of Poland substantially accepted it (1528), and Copernicus was nominated deputy counsellor on the financial regulations of Prussia (1522-29).

Copernicus as astronomer

These various offices, however, could not distract the genius of Copernicus from the main thought of his life. The towers of Heilsberg, of Allenstein, and of Frauenburg became so many observatories, and his great work "on the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies" bears testimony to his unremitting observations of sun, moon, and planets. His reputation was such that as early as 1514 the Lateran Council, convoked by Leo X, asked through Bishop Paul of Fossombrone, for his opinion on the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar. His answer was, that the length of the year and of the months and the motions of the sun and moon were not yet sufficiently known to attempt a reform. The incident, however, spurred him on as he himself writes to Paul III, to make more accurate observations; and these actually served, seventy years later, as a basis for the working out of the Gregorian calendar.

Twenty-five years after his university career, he had finished his great work, at least in his own mind, but hesitated a long time, whether to publish it or to imitate the Pythagoreans, who transmitted the mysteries of their philosophy only orally to their own disciples for fear of exposing them to the contempt of the multitude. His friends who had become interested in the new theory prevailed on him to write at least an abstract for them, manuscript copies of which have been discovered in Vienna (1873) and Stockholm (1878). In this commentary Copernicus stated his theory in the form of seven axioms, reserving the mathematical part for the Principal work. This was in 1531, or twelve years before his death. From this on the doctrine of the heliocentric system began to spread. In 1533 Albert Widmanstadt lectured before Pope Clement VII on the Copernican solar system. His reward consisted in a Greek codex which is preserved in the State library of Munich. Three years later Copernicus was urged by Cardinal Schonberg, then Archbishop of Capua, in a letter, dated at Rome, 1 November, 1536, to publish his discovery, or at least to have a copy made at the cardinal's expense. But all the urging of friends was in vain, until a younger man was providentially sent to his side.

It was George Joachim Rheticus who quitted his chair of mathematics in Wittenberg in order to spend two years at the feet of the new master (1539-41). Hardly ten weeks after his arrival in Frauenburg he sent a "First Narration" of the new solar system to his scientific friend Schöner in Nuremberg, in the form of a letter of sixty-six pages, which was soon after printed in Danzig (1540) and Basle (1541). Rheticus next obtained for publication the manuscript of a preliminary chapter of the great work on plane and spherical trigonometry. Finally Copernicus, feeling the weight of his sixty-eight years, yielded, as he writes to Paul III, to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Culm, and of other learned men to surrender his manuscripts for publication. Bishop Giese charged Rheticus, as the ablest disciple of the great master, with the task of editing the work. The intention of the latter was to take the manuscript to Wittenberg and have it published at the university but owing to the hostility prevailing there against the Copernican system, only the chapter on trigonometry was printed (1542). The two copies of the "First Narration" and of the treatise on trigonometry, which Rheticus presented to his friend Dr. Gasser, then practising medicine in Feldkirch, may be seen in the Vatican Library (Palat. IV, 585) Rheticus then turned to Schöner in Nuremberg, who, together with Osiander, accepted the charge and engaged the printing-house of Petreius in the same city. In the meanwhile Rheticus tried to resume his chair in Wittenberg, but on account of his Copernican views had to resign (1542) and turned to Leipzig (1543). He was thus prevented from giving his personal attention to the edition, nor was the author himself able to superintend it. Copernicus became paralyzed on the right side and weakened in memory and mind many days before his death. The first copy of the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" was handed to him the very day he died. Fortunately for him, he could not see what Osiander had done. This reformer, knowing the attitude of Luther and Melanchthon against the heliocentric system, introduced the word "Hypothesis" on the title page, and without adding his own name, replaced the preface of Copernicus by another strongly contrasting in spirit with that of Copernicus. The preface of Osiander warns the reader not to expect anything certain from astronomy, nor to accept its hypothesis as true, ne stultior ab hac disciplinâ discedat, quam accesserit. The dedication to Pope Paul III was, however, retained, and the text of the work remained intact, as was ascertained later when access was had to the original manuscript, now in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.

Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadically, to our own days. A list of many of their Pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV. New editions were issued in Basle (1566) by Rheticus; in Amsterdam (1617) by Müller of Göttingen, in Warsaw (1854) an edition de luxe with Polish translation and the real preface of Copernicus; and the latest (5th) in Torun (1873) by the Copernicus Society, on the four hundredth anniversary of the author's birthday, with all the corrections of the text, made by Copernicus, given as foot-notes. A monument by Thorwaldsen was erected to Copernicus in Warsaw (1830), and another by Tieck at Torun (1853). Rheticus, Clavius, and others called Copernicus the second Ptolemy, and his book the second "Almagest." His genius appears in the fact that he grasped the truth centuries before it could be proved. If he had precursors they are to be compared to those of Columbus. What is most significant in the character of Copernicus is this, that while he did not shrink from demolishing a scientific system consecrated by a thousand years' universal acceptance, he set his face against the reformers of religion. For supplementary information see the article GALILEO.

J.G. HAGEN

François Edouard Joachim Coppée

Poet, dramatist and novelist, b. at Paris, 26 January, 1842; d. 23 May, 1908. His father, a clerk in the war department, gave him the example of a true Christian life. He studied for a few years at the Lycée Saint-Louis, but his family being in straightened circumstances, he left the school before graduating to aid in their support. He completed his education by private study, spending long hours in the Library Ste-Genevieve, after a hard day's work. In 1863, he joined the group of poets later celebrated under the name of the "Parnassiens", and three years later published his first collection of verses, "le Reliquaire", soon followed by "Intimités". His first play "Le Passant", was produced in 1869. Through the influence of Princesse Mathilde, he was appointed assistant-librarian at the senate, a sinecure which allowed him to devote himself to literature. From 1871 to 1885 he was librarian at the Comédie Française. In 1876 he received the cross of the Legion of Honour, and was elected to the French Academy in 1884, succeeding Laprade, another poet whose talent did no little honour to the Catholic Faith. The works of Coppée come under four classes: narrative poems, dramas, novels and short stories. The narrative poems, including "Le Reliquaire" (1866), "Intimites" (1868), "Les Humbles" (1872), "Contes en Vers" (1880), and "Les Poèmes Modernes" (1867-69), present picturesque studies of contemporary life, the sentimental realism of which is entirely free from coarseness or triviality. He wrote a great number of plays in verse, chief among which are: "Le Passant" (1869), "Le Luthier de Cremone" (1876), "Severo Torelli" (1883), which is regarded as his dramatic masterpiece, "Les Jacobites" (1885), "Pour La Couronne" (1895), "Fais ce que Dois" (1871), and "Le Pater", a play dealing with an episode of the Commune; long forbidden by the Government, it obtained a great success in 1890. His drama is remarkable for its lofty and generous ideals, while its technique shows a constant effort to combine the theory of romanticism with the demands of modern theories. His works in prose comprise several novels: "Henriette" (1889); "Une idylle pendant le siege" (1874); "Les vrais riches" (1898); "Rivales" (1893); "le Coupable" (1897), and many short stories "Contes en prose" (1882); "Vingt contes nouveaux" (1883); "Contes rapides" (1889). The short stories are the most popular part of his works. Simplicity, truth and vividness in the portrayal of familiar scenes, constitute the charm that has so endeared the author to readers the world over. In "La Bonne Souffrance", written in 1898, after a serious illness that brought him back to the religious faith of his childhood, there are elements of great strength and sweetness. The last years of his life were saddened by cruel sufferings endured with patience. He was a modest man and led a quiet simple life. He was always ready to help those who struggle through life in obscurity. He gave to the French Academy, in 1907, a sum yielding $200 annually to be used as a prize for young poets.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Coptos

A titular see of Upper Egypt. It was the chief town of the Nomos of Harawî (Two Hawks), and was once politically important, but under the eleventh dynasty it was overshadowed by Thebes. Its principal god was Manou, with an Isis and an Horus infant; the remains of their temple were explored by Flinders Petrie in 1894. Coptos was at the starting-point of the two great routes leading to the coast of the Red Sea, the one towards the port Tââou (Myoshormos), the other more southerly, towards the port of Shashirît (Berenice). Under the Pharaohs the whole trade of southern Egypt with the Red Sea passed over these two roads; under the Ptolemies, and in Roman and Byzantine times, merchants followed the same roads for purposes of barter with the coasts of Zanzibar, Southern Arabia, India, and the Far East. Coptos was most prosperous under the Antonines; it was captured in 292 by Diocletian after a long siege, but soon recovered its former standing. In the sixth century it was called Justinianopolis. The see was suffragan of Ptolemais in Thebais Secunda. Five bishops are known (Lequien, II, 607): Theodorus, a partisan of Meletius; Phoebammon in 431; Sabinus in 451; Vincent, author of the "Canonical Solutions", preserved in an Arabic translation and highly esteemed by the Copts; Moyses, who wrote the panegyric of Vincent. Under the caliphs and the sultans Koptos remained one of the chief cities of Said. In 1176 its Christian inhabitants raised the standard of revolt against the Mussulmans, but were promptly suppressed by El Adel, brother of Saleh ed-Din (Saladin), who hanged nearly 3000 on the trees around the city. In the thirteenth century there were still in this region numerous monasteries. Coptos was ruined in the sixteenth century by the Turkish conquest. It is to-day a village called Kebt, or Keft, with about 2500 inhabitants, subject to the mudirieh of Keneh; it is situated near the right bank of the Nile, between Denderah (Tynteris) and Karnak (Thebes), about 620 miles from Cairo.

SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 666.

S. VAILHÉ

Claude-Godefroi Coquart

Missionary and army chaplain, b. in Pays de Caux, France, 20 February, 1706; d. at Chicoutini, Canada, 4 July, 1765. He began his novitiate in the Jesuit college at Paris, 20 May, 1726, studied at the College of Louis le Grand and at La Flèch, and was professor at Arras and Hesdin. In 1740 he set out for Canada, and in the following year, journeyed with Verendrye to Fort La Reine. He probably returned with Verendrye when that explorer was compelled to resign his position as commandant in the North-West. From 1746 to 1757 Father Coquart laboured on the Saguenay mission and later at Quebec. After the conquest of Canada, he attempted to settle a few Jesuits in Acadia, but the English authorities forced them to leave. He then resumed his labors in the Saguenay region, where he closed his missionary career. He has left an Abnaki grammar and dictionary. In the Jesuit Relations (Thwaites ed., LXIX) is a memoir written by him for the Intendant of Canada, in which he describes the so-called "King's Posts" of Eastern Canada with practical observations and suggestions that make it a valuable document for economic study.

Rochemonteix, Les Jésuites de la Nouvelle-France au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1906), I, iii; Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1896-1901), LXIX, 289,290. Pilling, Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages (Washington, 1891), 94; Bois, Notice sur Rév. Claude Godfroid Coquart (copy in library of Wis. Hist. Society); Sadlier, An Historic Spot on the Catholic World (1893), LIX, 309, seq.; Prud'homme, Revue Canadienne (1897), 81-92; Brown, The Two Missionary Priests at Mackinac; Idem, St. Anne's Parish Register at Michillimackinac (Chicago, 1889).

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Coracesium

A titular see of Asia Minor. According to Ptolemy (V, 5, 3), this town was not in Cilicia Tracheia, but in Roman Pamphylia. It had belonged to Isauria according to the pre-Roman ethnic system, and from A.D. 74 was probably included in Lycia-Pamphylia. Its port was the chief centre of the famous Cilician pirates: there Diodorus Tryphon was killed by Antiochus VII, and the pirates utterly destroyed by Pompey, who levelled their fortress. Coracesium became a suffragan of Side, metropolis of Pamphylia Prima. Lequien (I, 1007) mentions only four bishops, the first having been present at the Council of Constantinople (381), the last at the Council of Constantinople in 681; but the see is still mentioned in the "Notitiæ episcopatuum" as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. Coracesium is now a little town with about 2000 inhabitants (500 Greeks), the chief centre of a caza in the vilayet of Konia. Its Turkish name is Alaya. The Armenians have completely disappeared, though the town was a very important one in the time of the Rupens. There are curious ruins, walls, ancient tombs, and other remains of antiquity, and many romantic stories are associated with it.

BEAUFORT, Caramania (London, 1847); CUINET, Turquie d'Asie, I, 867-870; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 368 sq., with illustrations.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Ambrose Corbie

(Corby or Corbington).

Born near Durham, 7 Dec., 1604; d. at Rome, 11 April, 1649. He was the fourth son of Gerald Corbie and his wife Isabella Richardson, exiles for the Faith. Of their children, Ambrose, Ralph, and Robert, having become Jesuits (Richard died as a student at St-Omers, and the two surviving daughters, Mary and Catherine, became Benedictine nuns at Brussels), the parents by mutual agreement entered religion. The father entered the Society of Jesus as a lay brother in 1628, and having reconciled his father Ralph (aged 100) to the Church, died at Watten, 17 Sept., 1637. The mother, in 1633, was professed a Benedictine at Ghent and died a centenarian, 25 Dec., 1652. Ambrose at the age of 12 entered St-Omers, going thence (1622) to the English college, Rome. He entered the Society of Jesus at Watten in 1627, and in 1641 was professed. Having taught with some success for some years at St-Omers, and been minister at Ghent in 1645, he was appointed confessor at the English college, Rome, where he died in his forty-fifth year. His works are;

• "Certamen Triplex" etc., the history of the martyrdom of three English Jesuit priests: Thomas Holland, his own brother Ralph Corbie (see below), and Henry Morse (Antwerp, 1645, 12mo), with three engraved portraits; reprinted, Munich, 1646, 12mo); English translation by E. T. Scargill under the title of "The Threefold Conflict" etc.; ed. W. T. Turnbull (London, 1858, 8vo).
• Account of his family; English version in Foley, "Records", III, 64.
• "Vita et morte del Fratello Tomaso Stilintono [i.e. Stillington alias Olgethorpe] novitio Inglese della Compagnia de Gesu morto in Messina, 15 Sept., 1617"; (manuscript at Stonyhurst College; see Hist. MSS. Comm.",

3rd Report, 338, tr. and ed. Foley, "Records", III, 15 sqq. Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la c. de J., II, 1410; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 563.

Venerable Ralph Corbie

(Called at times Corrington).

Brother of Ambrose Corbie; martyr-priest, b. 25 March, 1598, near Dublin; d. 7 September, 1644. From the age of five he spent his childhood in the north of England, then going over seas he studied at Saint-Omer, Seville, and Valladolid, where he was ordained. Having become a Jesuit about 1626, he came to England about 1631 and laboured at Durham. He was seized by the Parliamentarians at Hamsterley, 8 July, 1644, when clothed in his Mass vestments, conveyed to London, and committed to Newgate (22 July) with his friend John Duckett, a secular priest. At their trial (Old Bailey, 4 September), they both admitted their priesthood, were condemned to death, and executed at Tyburn, 7 September. Stonyhurst has a relic of Father Corbie; for the Duke of Gueldres' attestation in 1650 of other relics, see Foley's "Records S.J.", I, 564; the "Certamen" portrait is reproduced in "Records", VII, (I), 168; for his letters see vol. III, 69 sqq., of the same work. The Corbie alias, according to Foley [op. cit., VII (II), 898] was Carlington or Carlton.

Tanner, Societas Jesu militans, 122; Challoner, Missionary Priests (1742), II, 278; Dodd, Church History, III, 111; Oliver, Collectanea S.J., 674; Foley, Records S.J., III, 59-98, 151 sqq; VI, 299; VII (I), 167; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 564; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 209; Certamen Triplex (Antwerp, 1645).

PATRICK RYAN

Monastery of Corbie

(Also CORBEY)

A Benedictine abbey in Picardy, in the Diocese of Amiens, dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul. It was founded in 657 by Saint Bathilde, widow of Clovis II, and both she and her son Clotaire III endowed it richly with lands and privileges. The latter were subsequently confirmed by Popes Benedict III and Nicholas I. The first monks came from Luxeuil, Theodefrid being the first abbot. Under St. Adelhard, the ninth abbot, the monastic school of Corbie attained great celebrity and about the same time it sent forth a colony to found the abbey of Corvey in Saxony. In 1137 a fire destroyed the monastic buildings but they were rebuilt on a larger scale. Commendatory abbots were introduced in 1550, amongst those that held the benefice being Cardinal Mazarin. The somewhat drooping fortunes of the abbey were revived in 1618, when it was one of the first to be incorporated into the new Congregation of Saint-Maur. At its suppression in 1790 the buildings were partly demolished, but the church remains to this day, with its imposing portal and western towers. One of the most famous scholars produced by Corbie was Paschasius Radbert (d. 865), the first to write a comprehensive treatise on the Blessed Sacrament. In the controversy to which this work gave rise, his chief opponent was Ratramnus, one of his own monks, whose views, however, are at variance with Catholic teaching; both treatises are printed in Migne, P. L., CXX-CXXI. The library of Corbie, rich and extensive, was removed to Saint-Germain-des-Prés in 1624.

MABILLON, Lives of St. Bathilde and Bl. Theodefrid in Acta Sanctorum O.S.B sæc. II. (Venice, 1733); SAINTE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1728), X, 1263; MIGNE, Dict. des abbayes (Paris, 1856); SEITERS in Kirchenlex, III, 1088-89; CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliogr. (Paris, 1894-99), 793-94, good bibliography. A view of the abbey, as it was before suppression, is given in DELACOURT AND DELISLE, Monasticon Gallicanum (Paris, 1871), II, pl. 76.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

St. Corbinian

Bishop of Freising, in Bavaria, born about 680 at Chatres near Melun, France; died 8 September, 730. His feast is celebrated 8 September, translation, 20 November; emblem, a bear. Nothing is known of his youth. His father, Waldekiso, died before the birth of Corbinian. After the death of his mother, Corbiniana, he lived as a hermit at the church of Saint-Germain at Chatres. With some of his disciples he went to Rome in 716 (709). Here he was consecrated bishop, given the pallium, and sent to preach, which he did with great success in the vicinity of his former home. In 723 (716) he again visited Rome, with the intention of resigning. The pope would not listen to his request. On his return trip Corbinian came to Mais in Tyrol, where he was induced by messengers of Duke Grimoald to go to Bavaria, and settle at Freising. The dates of the Roman journeys are somewhat confused, but the people of Freising seem to consider 724 as the date of CorbinianUs arrival, for in 1724 was celebrated the tenth, and in 1824 the eleventh centenary of the existence of the diocese. On account of the incestuous marriage of Grimoald, his apparent repentance, and subsequent relapse, Corbinian left Freising, but returned in 729 (725), on the invitation of Huebert, CrimoaldUs successor, and continued his apostolic labours. His body was buried at Freising, then transferred to Mais, and in 769 brought back to Freising by Bishop Aribo, who also wrote his life. St. Corbinian was a man of zeal, and of strong feeling, not to say temper, and exercised great influence over all with whom he came in contact.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

James Andrew Corcoran

Theologian, editor, and Orientalist, b. at Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A., 30 March, 1820; d. at Philadelphia, 16 July, 1889. In his fourteenth year he was sent to the College of Propaganda, Rome, where he made a brilliant course and was ordained priest 21 December, 1842. He was the first native of the Carolinas who received priestly orders. He remained a year longer in Rome to complete his studies and was made doctor in sacred theology. He read with ease the literatures and dialects of Western and Northern Europe, spoke Latin as fluently as his native tongue, and acquired that thorough mastery of the idiom which distinguishes the text of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. In addition, he was a profound Semitic scholar, with a special predilection for Syriac. On the death of Bishop England in 1842 he was recalled to Charleston, where he taught in the seminary, doing parochial work in the meantime, and in conjunction with Dr. Lynch edited the "United States Catholic Miscellany", the first distinctively Catholic literary periodical published in the United States. His position as a Catholic editor naturally involved him in many controversies, one being on the life and teachings of Martin Luther, for which Dr. Corcoran procured from Europe an abundance of Lutherana. He had made great headway with the preparation of a life of Luther, when in 1861 his manuscript and library were destroyed by fire. During the Civil War his sympathies were with the South, and the end of the struggle found him rector of a parish at Wilmington, North Carolina, where he proved his fidelity to pastoral duty during an epidemic of cholera which decimated his little flock. He was made secretary to the Baltimore Provincial Councils of 1855 and 1858; also secretary in chief at the Second Plenary Council of 1866. He was one of the editors of the complete works of Bishop England. In 1868 he was chosen by the unanimous voice of the American hierarchy as their theologian on the commission preparatory to the Vatican Council. He was assigned to the doctrinal commission presided over by Cardinal Billio. During the debates on papal infallibility, a doctrine which he firmly held, he drew up for Archbishop Spalding the famous "Spalding Formula", destined as an olive-branch, in which the doctrine is rather implied than flatly stated. But those were no days for compromises. While at the council, Bishop Wood of Philadelphia, his school-fellow at the Propaganda, perfected arrangements by which Dr. Corcoran took a theological chair in the newly-opened seminary at Overbrook, near Philadelphia. This position he retained until death, declining, on the plea of advancing years, a call to the Catholic University at Washington. In 1876 the "American Catholic Quarterly Review" was founded, and Dr. Corcoran was made chief editor. His able articles and book notices were the principal source of its success. (For a list of his contributions see General Index of the Review, Philadelphia, 1900, p. 15.) In 1883, when the archbishops of the United States were invited to Rome to prepare for the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, they took Dr. Corcoran with them as secretary, and, at their request, he was permitted to be present and take notes at the sessions held with the three cardinals appointed by Pope Leo XIII as a special commission. The following year he was made a domestic prelate and assisted as secretary at the Plenary Council. That Monsignor Corcoran did not bequeath to posterity works of any great size is explained by the circumstances of his life. He was too busy a man to devote himself to literary pursuits. A great part of his time was occupied with his immense correspondence. He may be said to have been weighted down with "the solicitude of all the Churches", for such was the confidence which the bishops and clergy reposed in his judgment, that they sought his counsel on all difficult points of theology and canon law. He was apparently unconscious of his great gifts, claiming no superiority, and was extremely affable. His love for the Church, and his loyal adhesion to all her doctrines, were patent in all he said or wrote.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Michael Corcoran

Soldier, b. at Carrowkeel, County Sligo, Ireland, 21 September, 1827; d. at Fairfax Court House, Virginia, U.S.A., 22 December, 1863. His father was an army pensioner, and he himself joined the Royal Irish Constabulary when nineteen years of age. He resigned after three years' service and emigrated to New York in August, 1849. Here he soon became a leader among his fellow-countrymen. He enlisted as a private in the Sixty-Ninth Regiment of the State Militia, a command composed of Catholics of Irish birth or descent, and rose from rank to rank until he was elected colonel, 25 August, 1859. The next year the Prince of Wales (afterwards King Edward VII of England) visited New York, and in the military parade given in his honour Colonel Corcoran refused to order the Sixty-Ninth Regiment to join. For this act of military disobedience he was placed under arrest by the State authorities and ordered before a court martial. The trial created much excitement all over the country, his Irish countrymen enthusiastically applauding his course, and the case was pending when the Civil War broke out. The proceedings were immediately quashed, and the Sixty-Ninth, with overflowing ranks, was one of the first regiments to march, with Corcoran at its head, 23 April, 1861, to the defence of the Union. It participated with special gallantry in the first Battle of Bull Run, 21 July, 1861, in which action Colonel Corcoran was wounded and taken prisoner. He was kept in the Confederate prisons for thirteen months and then exchanged in August, 1862. His return to the North brought him a series of popular ovations and testimonials. He was commissioned a brigadier-general, at once raised a brigade of four regiments, which was called the Irish Legion, and, taking command of it, rejoined the army in Virginia in November, 1862. During the following year the Legion participated in several minor engagements, and while in camp at Fairfax Court House, Virginia, General Corcoran was thrown from his horse and died the same day from the effects of the accident.

CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and Its Campaigns (Boston, 1869); CRIMMINS, Irish American Historical Miscellany (New York, 1905); The Irish American (New York), The Pilot (Boston); contemporary files; CAVANAGH, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher (Worcester, 1892).

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Confraternities of the Cord

Pious associations of the faithful, the members of which wear a cord or cincture in honour of a saint, to keep in mind some special grace or favour which they hope to obtain through his intercession. Among Oriental peoples, and especially among the Jews, whose priests and prophets wore a cincture, the wearing of a belt or girdle dates back to very ancient times. Christ himself commanded his Apostles to have their loins girded. In the early Church virgins wore a cincture as a sign and emblem of purity, and hence it has always been considered a symbol of chastity as well as of mortification and humility. The wearing of a cord or cincture in honour of a saint is of very ancient origin, and we find the first mention of it in the life of St. Monica. In the Middle Ages cinctures were also worn by the faithful in hounour of saints, though no confraternities were formally established, and the wearing of a cincture in honour of St. Michael was general throughout France. Later on, ecclesiastical authority set apart special formulae for the blessing of cinctures in honour of the Most Precious Blood, Our Lady, St. Francis of Paul, and St. Philomena. There are in the Church three archconfraternities and one confraternity the members of which wear a cord or cincture.

(1) The Archconfraternity of Our Lady of Consolation, or of the Black Leathern Belt of St. Monica, St. Augustine, and St. Nicholas of Tolentino

According to an old tradition, St. Monica in a vision received a black leathern belt from the Blessed Virgin, who assured the holy widow that she would take under her special protection all those who wore it in her honour. St. Monica related this vision to St. Ambrose and St. Simplicianus; both saints put on a leathern belt, and St. Ambrose is said to have girded St. Augustine with it at his baptism. Later on it was adopted by the Hermits of St. Augustine as a distinctive part of their habit. When, after the canonization of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, it came into general use among the faithful, Eugene IV in 1439 erected the Confraternity of the Cincture of St. Monica, St. Augustine, and St. Nicholas of Tolentino, in the church of St. James at Bologna. In 1590 Thaddeus of Perugia, General of the Augustinians, united this confraternity and that of Our Lady of Consolation (founded in 1318 or, according to others, in 1495) into one confraternity, which union was confirmed by Gregory XIII in his Bull "Ad ea" (15 July, 1575). The same pope raised this confraternity to the rank of an archconfraternity and enriched it with many Indulgences. He further ordained that all confraternities of the black leathern belt should be aggregated to the archconfraternity at Bologna, in order to share its privileges and Indulgences. The principal feast of this confraternity is the Sunday within the octave of the feast of St. Augustine (28 August). The members are obliged to wear a black leathern belt, to recite daily thirteen Paters and Aves and the Salve Regina, and to fast on the vigil of the feast of St. Augustine. For the erection of and reception into this archconfraternity special faculties must be had from the general of the Sugustinians.

(2) Archconfraternity of the Cord of St. Francis

After his conversion St. Francis girded himself with a rough cord in memory of the cords with which Christ had been bound during His Passion, and a white girdle with three knots cam subsequently to form part of the Franciscan habit. According to Wadding, St. Dominic received the cord from St. Francis and always wore it under his habit out of devotion to the saint, his example being followed by many of the faithful. In his Bull "Ex supernae dispositionis" (19 November, 1585), Sixtus V erected the Archconfraternity of the Cord of St. Francis in the basilica of the Sacro Convento at Assisi, enriching it with many Indulgences, and conferred upon the minister general of the Conventuals the power of erecting confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in the churches of his own order and of aggregating them to the archconfraternity at Assisi. The same pope, in his Bull "Divinae caritatis" (29 August, 1587), granted new Indulgences to the archconfraternity and empowered the minister general of the Friars Minor to erect confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in the churches of his own order in those places where they are no Conventuals. Paul V, in his Bull "Cum certas" (2 March, 1607), and "Nuper archiconfraternitati" (11 March, 1607) revoked all spiritual favours hitherto conceded to the archconfraternity and enriched it with new and more ample Indulgences. Both these Bulls were confirmed by the Brief of Clement X, "Dudum felicis" (13 July, 1673). Finally, Benedict XIII in his Constitution "Sacrosancti apostolatus" (30 September, 1724), conceded to the minister general of the Conventuals authority to erect confraternities of the Cord of St. Francis in churches not belonging to his own order in those places where there are no Franciscans. New privileges and Indulgences were conceded to the archconfraternity by two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated 22 March, 1879, and 26 May, 1883. Besides the ordinary requirements necessary for the gaining of all plenary and partial Indulgences, the wearing of the cord and enrollment in the records of the archconfraternity are the only conditions imposed on the members.

(3) Archconfraternity of the Cord of St. Joseph

The miraculous cure of an Augustinian nun at Antwerp in 1657 from a grievous illness, through the wearing of a cord in honour of St. Joseph gave rise to the pious practice of wearing it to obtain the grace of purity through his intercession. The devotion soon spread over many countries of Europe, and in the last century was revived at Rome in the church of San Rocco and in that of San Nicolo at Verona. Pius IX, in a rescript dated 19 September, 1859, approved a special formula for the blessing of the Cord of St. Joseph, and in his Brief "Expositum nobis nuper" (14 March, 1862) enriched the confraternity with many indulgences. In 1860 several new Indulgences were granted to the confraternity erected in the church of San Nicolo at Verona and by the Brief "Universi Dominici gregis", 23 September, 1862, the Confraternity of the Cord of St. Joseph was raised to an archconfraternity. The members are obliged to wear a cord having seven knots, and are exhorted to recite daily seven Glorias in honour of St. Joseph. Confraternities of the Cord of St. Joseph much be aggregated to the archconfraternity in the church of San Rocco at Rome in order to enjoy its spiritual favours and Indulgences.

(4) Confraternity of the Cord of St. Thomas

It is related in the life of St. Thomas Aquinas that, as a reward for his overcoming a temptation against purity, he was girded with a cord by angels, and that in consequence he was never again tempted against this virtue. This cord is still preserved in the church at Chieri near Turin. Soon after the saint's death many of the faithful began to wear a cord in honour of St. Thomas, to obtain the grace of purity through his intercession. In the seventeenth century societies were formed at different universities, the student members of which wore a cord in honour of St. Thomas, hoping through his intercession to be protected from the dangers to which youth is generally exposed. The first Confraternity of the Cord of St. Thomas was erected at the University of Louvain by the Belgian Dominican Francis Deuwerders, and numbered among its members all the professors and students of the faculty of theology and many of the faithful. Thence it spread to Maastricht, Vienna, and many other cities of Europe. Innocent X sanctioned this new confraternity by a Brief dated 22 March, 1652. The members are required to have their names enrolled, to wear a cord with fifteen knots, and to recite daily fifteen Ave Marias in honour of St. Thomas. For the erection of and reception into this confraternity special faculties must be had from the superior general of the Dominicans. Its Indulgences and privileges are contained in the great Bull of Benedict XIII, "Pretiosus" (26 April, 1727, sect. 9) and in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences (8 May, 1844). (See ARCHCONFRATERNITY.)

MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio Indulgentiarum (Quaracchi, 1897), 1018-24, 1026-35; BERINGER, Die Ablasse (11th ed., Paderborn, 1895), 722-23, 712-14; SCHNEIDER, Rescripta Authentica S. Cong. Indulg. (Ratisbon, 1885), 505 sqq. 432-35; IDEM, Decreta Authentica S. Cong. Indulg. ab a. 1669-1882) Ratisbon, 1883); IDEM, Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch (8th ed., Paderborn, 1884), 479-481, 540, 579, 705, 730; LOCHERER, Vollstandiger Inbegriff der Gnaden und Ablasse der Erzbruderschaft Mariae vom Troste (10th ed., Ratisbon, 1890); PRENDERGAST, The Cord of St. Francis (12th ed., Dublin, 1885); GAUDENTIUS, Ablass-und Bruderschaftsbuch (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1687), 300-307; SEGUR, Der seraphische Gurtel (2nd ed., Mainz, 1878); DEUWERDERS, Militia angelica S. Thomae (Louvain, 1679); La milice angelique, sa nature, ses conseils, pratiques, prieres (Paris, 1869); SCUPOLI, Il giglio della purita (3rd ed., Rome, 1878): ESSER, Der hl. Thomas als Patron der Unschuld in der ihm geweihten Gurtelbruderschaft (Ratisbon, 1883); Entstehung und Zweck der Erzbruderschaft vom Gurtel des hl. Joseph (Innsbruck, 1875); S. Josephs Gurtel (3rd ed., Vienna, 1881).

FERDINAND HECKMANN

Guilo Cesare Cordara

Historian and littérateur, b. at Alessandra in Piedmont, Italy, 14 Dec., 1704; died there 6 March, 1785. The scion of an illustrious and ancient family that came originally from Nice, young Cordara studied at Rome under the Jesuits, and became a Jesuit himself at the age of fourteen. Subsequently he taught in various colleges of the order, soon acquiring a great reputation not only for knowledge of general literature, but especially for proficiency in poetry, rhetoric, and history. A brilliant discourse on Pope Gregory XIII, the founder of the Roman College, and a satire on the Cabalists of the day, won for him admission into the Academy of the Arcadians. Several poetical works of his appeared under the pen name of Pameno Cassio. He was in high favor with the exiled Stuarts, then residing in Rome, on account of an allegorical drama, "La Morte di Nice", which he composed in honor of the titular King James III, and a history in Latin of the expedition into Scotland of Charles Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales, which some of his admirers look upon as his most finished production. His satires on "The Literary Spirit of the Times", published in 1737, are of a high order of merit. In them he pillories a class of contemporary writers who arrogated to themselves the literary censorship of their day, condemned the classification of the sciences and the methods of instruction then in vogue, and even the accepted principles of taste. A seventh and revised edition was brought out at Augsburg in 1764. But the work by which he is perhaps best known is "The History of the Society of Jesus", Sixth Part, in two volumes, the first published in Rome in 1750, the second posthumously, by Father Raggazzini in 1859, over a century later. This work was a continuation of the history of the Society of Jesus by Orlandini, Saccini, and Juvency, and embraced the period of Mutius Vitelleschi, 1616-1633. It is in Latin and remarkable for the elegance, purity, and dignity of its style. He is also the author of a history of the German College in Rome, which contains a list of its distinguished alumni (Rome, 1770). When the Society of Jesus was suppressed, Cordara, who had been a member for more than half a century, withdrew from Rome to Turin, and later to Alessandria, where the King of Sardinia had allowed some members of the Society to live unmolested. Notwithstanding his advanced age and his new mode of life, Cordara continued his literary labours and published much in prose and verse. Sommervogel enumerates more than sixty works, large and small, of which he is the author. The citizens of his native town erected a marble statue to his memory, in the church of the Barnabites where he was interred.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., II, 1411-1432; de Backer, I, 369-74; III, 2097-8; Michaud, Biog. Univ. (Paris, nouvelle éd., s.d.), IX, 90; Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1895), V, 376; Carayon, Bibliographie Historique de la c. de J. (Paris, 1864, 249.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Charles Cordell

English missionary priest, b. 5 October, 1720; d. at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 26 January, 1791. He was the son of Charles Cordell and Hannah Darrell, of the well-known family of Scotney Castle and Calehill, Kent, and was educated first at "Dame Alice's School", Fernyhalgh, afterwards at Douai, where, in 1739, he began his course of philosophy. Having been ordained priest, he left the college 10 June, 1748, for England, where he served the mission at Arundel (1748-55), Rounday, in Yorkshire, the Isle of Man, and finally Newcastle-on-Tyne (1765-91). In 1778 the presidency of the English college at Saint-Omer was offered to him, but he would not accept it. He was a scholarly, book-loving man, of some note as a preacher. In politics he remained a stanch Jacobite. He published many translations and one original pamphlet, "A Letter to the Author of a Book called 'A Candid and Impartial Sketch of the Life and Government of Pope Clement XIV'" (1785). The translations include "The Divine Office for the Use of the Laity" (4 vols., Sheffield, 1763; 2d ed., 2 vols., Newcastle, 1780); Bergier's "Deism Self-refuted" (1775); Caraccioli's "Life of Pope Clement XIV" (1776); Letters of Pope Clement XIV (2 vols., 1777); Fronsletin's "Travels of Reason" (1781); Fleury's "Manners of the Christians" (1786) and "Manners of the Israelites" (1786); "Larger Historical Catechism" (1786); and "Short Historical Catechism" (1786).

KIRK, Biographies (Early Nineteenth Cent.) (London, 1908); Catholic Miscellany (1826), VI, 387; Notes and Queries, 3d series, X, 330, 383; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London, 1885), I, 565; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1887). XII, 213.

EDWIN BURTON

Balthasar Cordier

(Corderius)

Exegete and editor of patristic works, b. at Antwerp, 7 June, 1592; d. at Rome, 24 June, 1650. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1612, and after teaching Greek, moral theology, and Sacred Scripture, devoted himself to translating and editing MSS. of Greek catenæ and other works of the Greek Fathers, for which he searched the libraries of Europe.

He published the following: (1) Catena sexaginta quinque Patrum græcorum in S. Lucam" (Antwerp, 1628); (2) Catena Patrum græcorum in S. Joannem" (Antwerp, 1630); (3) Joannis Philoponi in cap. I Geneseos . . . libri septem" (Antwerp, 1630); (4) S. Cyrilli apologiæ morales" (Vienna, 1630);(5) Opera S. Dionysii Areopagitæ cum S. Maximi scholiis" (Antwerp, 1634); (6) Expositio Patrum græcorum in Psalmos" (Antwerp, 1643-46); (7) Symbolæ in Matthæum" (2 vols., of which, however, only the second is by him; Toulouse, 1646-47); (8) S. Dorothei archimandritæ institutiones asceticæ" (Antwerp, 1646); (9) S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandini homiliæ XIX in Jeremiam" (Antwerp, 1648) — in this case as in a few others, his critical acumen was at fault; these homilies are Origen's.He is also the author of a commentary on the Book of Job, "Job Illustratus" (Antwerp, 1646; reprinted in Migne's Cursus S. Scripturæ". XIII and XIV, and in Campon's edition of Cornelius a Lapide).

Sommervogel, Biblioth. de la c. de J., II, 1438, s. v.; Hurter, Nomenclator.

F. BECHTEL

Cordova

DIOCESE OF CORDOVA (CORDUBENSIS)

Diocese in Spain, formerly suffragan of Toledo, since 1851 of Seville. It includes the province of the same name, with the exception of a few parishes that pertain to the Archdiocese of Seville, while in return Cordova takes a portion of the civil province of Badajoz. The Gospel, it is believed, was preached there in the Apostolic period, it being very probable that Apostles St. James the Greater and St. Paul, while preaching in various cities of Spain may have sent thither some of their disciples; Cordova (Colonia Patricia) was then the chief city of Bætica, and the centre of Andalusian life. The name of the apostolic founder the of the See of Cordova is unknown, as the oldest extant documents do not antedate the third century. The conditions of the Christian religion in this early period were quite similar to those which obtained elsewhere in the Roman Empire — persecution, suspicion, denunciation, enforced profession of idolatry, etc. Many illustrious martyrs, Faustus, Januarius, and others, suffered at Cordova; their relics were afterwards eagerly sought by the other churches of Spain, and even in Gaul and elsewhere. The earliest known bishop (though not the founder of the see) is Severus, about 279; he was followed by Gratus and Berosus. In 294 the famous Hosius became Bishop of Cordova and immortalized it by his resistance to Arianism. Fifteen bishops governed the see from the death of Hosius in 357 to 693, from which period to 839 no bishops are known. All ecclesiastical records, doubtless, perished in the course of the Arab domination that began in 711. During this time, the faithful could, it is true, worship freely, and retained their churches and property on condition of paying a tribute for every parish, cathedral, and monastery; frequently such tribute was increased at the will of the conqueror, and often the living had to pay for the dead. Many of the faithful then fled to Northern Spain; others took refuge in the monasteries of Sierras, and thus the number of Christians shrank eventually to small proportions.

In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe. Under Abd-er Rahman II there came a change in the attitude of the Arab rulers, and a fierce persecution ensued, during which many Christians were accused of abusing the memory of Mohammed, of entering mosques, and of conspiracy against the Government. Saracen fanaticism ran high. Among the martyrs of this period are Perfectus, Flora, Maria, numerous nuns of the monastery of Tabana in the Sierras, also Aurelius, Sabiniana, Abundius, Amator, and others; the names of more than thirty are known. The most famous of these martyrs is St. Eulogius, priest and abbot, who was in 858 chosen Archbishop of Toledo. For his encouragement of the confessors by his writings, "Memoriale sanctorum", "Apologeticus sanctorum martyrum", "Documentum martyrii", "Epistolæ", he was eventually put to death in 859. His life was written (P.L., CXV, 705-32) by Paulus Alvarus, a Scriptural scholar and theologian, who was not a martyr, Baudissin notwithstanding (Eulogius und Alvarus, Leipzig, 1872). With slight interruptions this persecution continued under succeeding bishops, Saul (850) and Valentius (662); it co-operated with the Anthropomorphite heresy of Hostegesis and other causes to bring about a gap of a century and a half in the list of the bishops of Cordova. In 962 Abd-er Rahman III was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim. Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed, some knowledge of their condition has been preserved, among other things the name of their bishop, Joannes, also the fact that, at that period, the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens. From all quarters came students eager to drink at its founts of knowledge. Among the men afterwards famous who studied at Cordova were the scholarly monk Gerbert, destined to sit on the Chair of Peter as Sylvester II (999-1003), the Jewish rabbis Moses and Maimonides, and the famous Spanish-Arabian commentator on Aristotle, Averroes (Bourret, De Scholâ Cordubæ christianâ sub Omiaditarum imperio, Paris, 1853). On account of the wretched administration of the successors of Add-er Rahman III, the invasion of the Almohades (1097), and the continuous peninsular warfare between Moslem and Christian, little is known of the episcopal succession in Cordova from the time of Bishop Joannes (988) to the reconquest of the city by the Christians under St. Ferdinand III (1236). The long period (524 years) of humiliation of the Church of Cordova now came to an end, and a new epoch of prosperity and Christian religious service began which was inaugurated by the piety and generosity of the saintly conquistador (Haines, Christianity and Islam in Spain, London, 1889, 756-1031). Reference has already been made to the conversion of the mosque into a cathedral; several parishes were also established, and spacious convents were built for various religious orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, Mercedarians. A cathedral chapter was established, some of the earlier Christian churches were restored, and some mosques were converted into churches. The diocese, that in the earlier Hispano-Roman period had been very large, began to expand again and had added to it many cities of the Archdiocese of Seville, which was yet in the power of the Moors. The newly acquired territory was soon occupied by Christian knights and Christian families, owing to the privileges and franchises granted by St. Ferdinand to such colonists. Bishop Lope de Fitero, who was consecrated about 1237, began a new episcopal series which has remained unbroken, the bishop consecrated in 1898 being his seventy-third successor.

Since the expulsion of the Moriscos and Jews at the end of the fifteenth century, the Catholic worship alone has been exercised in the diocese, if individuals belonging to a few sects are excepted. It is true that since the eighteenth century the religious fervour of the Catholics of Cordova has considerably diminished, owing to the assimilation by the civil laws of the liberal principles of the French Revolution, the legalized usurpation of ecclesiastical property, and a positivism nourished by the literature, the theatre, and the free press of the day. There remains, nevertheless, much of the Catholic charity and zeal which distinguished the centuries after the reconquest, when bishops, clergy, and faithful rivalled one another in generous endowment of hospitals, asylums, and schools, and placed at the disposal of the Church a rich patrimony capable of supporting a numerous clergy and a continuous and splendid public worship. A steady sectarian propaganda, a lowering of the moral tone, and religious ignorance have made many Cordovans quite lax in their Catholic practice; nevertheless, they do not at all wish to appear as deserting the Catholic Faith. The palace of the bishop faces the former mosque, and in it are located ed all the administrative offices of the diocese. The cathedral clergy is composed of twenty canons, fifteen beneficed clergymen, and five ecclesiastics charged with various duties. There are 124 parishes, about 500 priests, and 269 churches and chapels. The population of the diocese is about 430,000; that of the city in 1900 was 58,275. The following religious orders and congregations have houses in the city: Jesuits, Carmelites, Capuchins, Dominicans, Trinitarians, Salesians, and Diocesan Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Mary, the last named founded in 1876. In four or five other places in the diocese there are also religious houses, among them convents of Franciscans and Augustinians.

In the near vicinity of Cordova is the solitude (desierto) of Our Lady of BelÈn, a monastery of (fourteen) anchorites under a common rule and leading a very austere life; they do not take sacred orders, and are governed by a brother superior (hermano mayor); their spiritual director is a secular priest. The Salesian Fathers alone are engaged in teaching; the other orders devote themselves to the contemplative life or conduct public worship. There are seventy-seven religious communities of women, of which twenty-seven are in Cordova and the rest scattered throughout the diocese. They number in all 1106 sisters. Some lead the contemplative life, others devote themselves to teaching or to works of charity. The twelve charitable institutions are cared for by 145 Sisters of Charity; among such institutions in the city are four homes for the aged, two refuges for young girls, a hospital for the insane, a hospital for chronic diseases with 239 patients, a boys' orphan asylum with 425 inmates, and a foundling asylum containing 131 children. There is also a charitable restaurant (Comedor de la Caridad) in charge of six brothers, which provides good and abundant food for workingmen and poor families at very modest prices. The religious educational institutes of the city for both sexes number twelve, and the pupils attending them 2023. The college of the Salesian Fathers has 325 boys. Outside of Cordova there are several educational and charitable institutions. The Grand Seminary of San Pelagio at Cordova was founded in the sixteenth century of Dr. Maurticio Pazos y Figueroa, and enlarged in the eighteenth by Cardinal Salazar. It has fifteen professors and 125 ecclesiastical students. Attached to the various parishes are many lay confraternities devoted to works of charity, or to the support of public worship. Of the early synods held at Cordova, two are important, those of 839 and 852. The Acts of the former were first printed by Flórez (España sagrada, XV; Hefele, IV, 99). It was held against fanatical heretics, probably from Northern Africa, and known as "Casiani", who professed loose doctrines regarding marriage, rejected veneration of relics, demanded more rigour in fasting, declared unclean certain foods, insisted on receiving the Eucharistic Host each in his own hand, etc. The synod of 852 reproved those Christians who voluntarily sought the occasion of martyrdom and declared that such had no right to the veneration due to martyrs (Mansi, XIV, 970; Hefele, IV, 179).

DE LA FUENTE, Hist. ec.ca de España (Madrid, 1872-75); GAMS, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (Ratisbon, 1862 sqq.); GOMEZ BRAVO, Catálogo de los obispos de Córdoba (Cordova, 1778); SANCHEZ DE FERIA, Palestra sagrada, etc. (Cordova, 17820; RAMIREZ DE LAS CASAS-DEZA, Indicador CordobÈs, etc. (Cordova, 1837); RUANO, Hist. general de Córdoba (Cordova, 1761) 1 vol.; two in manuscript; MORALES (ed.), Eulogi Cordubensis Opera (Alcalá, 1574) in P.L., CXV, 703-960; Boletin ec.co de la diócesis de Córdoba (Cordova, 1858-1907); REDEL, San Rafael en Córdoba (Cordova, 1889); RAMIREZ DE ARELLANO, Paseos por Córdoba (Cordova, 1875).

MANUEL GARCIA OSUNA

Cordova

(CORDUBENSIS IN AMERICA).

Diocese in the Argentine Republic, suffragan of Buenos Aires. It was created in 1570, but was vacant from 1819 to 1830, and again from 1841 to 1858. It has 46 parishes, 49 churches and chapels, and, by reason of its vast extent (it includes the two states of Cordova and Rioja, which in 1895 had about 570,000 souls), has two auxiliary bishops. The population of the episcopal city is 53,000; one of the two national universities, the second oldest in the New World (1573), is located there, also a national observatory, and a meteorological bureau.

Juan de Cordova

Born 1503, at Cordova in Andalusia, Spain, of noble parents; d. 1595 at Oaxaca, Mexico. It is not certain whether Córdova was his family name, or whether he assumed it from his native city after he became a Dominican. He first embraced a military career, serving in Flanders as ensign. He then went to Mexico, and accompanied Coronado to New Mexico in 1540-42. In 1543 he entered the Dominican Order at Mexico, and was sent to Oaxaca in 1548, where he acquired the Zapotecan idiom and ministered to the Indians. He was named provincial in 1568. Brought up under military discipline, he administered as provincial with such rigour and severity, that there were many complaints against him to the chapter that congregated at Yanhuitlan in 1570. He refused to comply with the admonitions of his superiors and change his methods, and was accordingly suspended. With the exclamation: "Benedictus Deus!" he received the notification of his deposition, and, declining the interference of the Viceroy Enr=EDquez in his favour, retired to his convent at Tlacochauaya in Oaxaca, where he died after twenty-five years spent in retirement and in the study of the Zapotecan language and the customs of the natives. His knowledge of the language was thorough, and he composed a "Vocabulario de la Lengua Zapoteca, ó Diccionario Hispano-Zapoteco" (Mexico, 1571, or, according to Ycazbalceta, 1578). The "Arte en Lengua Zapoteca" appeared in 1578 at Mexico. Besides the linguistic part, this book contains a short but valuable note on the rites and superstitions of the Zapotecan Indians, and an equally important account of their method of reckoning time, which has been republished by Manuel Orozco y Berra.

DAVILA PADILLA, Hist. de la Fundacion y Discurso &ca. (Madrid,1596); BURGOA, Geográfica Descripcion(Mexico,1674); LEON Y PINELO, Epitome &ca. (Madrid, 1737-1738); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova (Madrid, 1733-1738); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca &ca. (1883); YCAZBALCETA, Bibliografia mexicana (Mexico, 1886).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Core, Dathan, and Abiron

Leaders of a revolt against Moses and Aaron (Num., xvi). Core was the son of Isaar, of the Caathite family of Levites; Dathan and Abiron were the sons of Eliab, the son of Phallu, of the tribe of Ruben. A fourth leader is mentioned, Hon, the son of Pheleth, likewise a Rubenite; but as the name does not again appear, a corruption of the text is rightly suspected. Core was the head of the rebellion, whence it is called the sedition of Core (Num., xvi, 49; xxvi, 9; xxvii, 3; Jude, 11), and the rebels are styled the congregation of Core (Num., xvi, 40; Ecclus., xlv, 22). The rebel faction consisted of three parties with different motives and different aims. Many of the people were not yet reconciled to the exclusive priesthood instituted at Sinai, and desired the restoration of the old order, in which the priestly functions were exercised by the oldest member of each family. The non-Aaronic Levites bore it ill that the prerogatives of the priesthood should be confined to the family of Aaron, while they occupied the position of mere servants, and they demanded that they also be admitted to exercise priestly functions. Lastly the Rubenites were aggrieved because their tribe was deprived of the leadership, which naturally should belong to it as being descended from the oldest son of Jacob. But all were animated by jealousy of the power of the house of Amram, in which the civil and religious authority was concentrated, and all aimed at its overthrow. The two first parties, however, desired the removal of Moses from power, only in so far as he was an obstacle to the realization of their claims, whereas with the Rubenites this removal was the main object. In the account of the revolt neither time nor place is mentioned. But it must have occurred shortly after leaving Sinai, when the Aaronic priesthood was still a recent institution. It probably took place at Cades, after the attempt to penetrate into the Promised Land had ended disastrously near Horma (Num., xiv, 40 sqq.), and the people had begun to realize that there was no escape from the sentence condemning them to wander forty years in the desert. The taunting words of Dathan and Abiron (Num., xvi, 13, 14) point to such a situation. Core and two hundred and fifty leading men of different tribes (cf. Num., xxvii, 3) — Dathan and Abiron for some unknown reason were not with them — went to Moses and demanded the abolition of the exclusive priesthood. "Enough for you", they said; "all the congregation consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is with them: why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?" Moses directed them to bring their censers (fire-pans) on the morrow to offer incense with Aaron before the Lord; the Lord would choose between them. When the next day Core and his two hundred and fifty companions offered incense before the door of the tabernacle, they were destroyed by fire from the Lord. In the meanwhile Moses went to the dwellings of Dathan and Abiron, who had refused to obey his summons to appear before him, and warned the people to depart from the tents of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, lest they should share the dreadful punishment about to be inflicted on the two last. Hardly had he done speaking when the earth broke asunder and swallowed Dathan and Abiron and their households and all the men that appertained to Core. The sons of Core did not perish, however (Num., xxvi, 10, 11), and later we find their descendants among the singers (I Par., vi, 37; II Par., xx, 19; Pss. xli, xliii, xlviii, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii), or among the door-keepers of the temple (I Par., ix, 19; xxvi, 1, 19). Moses ordered the censers of Core and his companions to be beaten into plates and fastened to the altar as a warning to those who would usurp the priesthood.

The critical school sees in the story of this rebellion a clumsy combination of three distinct narratives; one relating a revolt under Dathan and Abiron against the civil authority of Moses; another containing an account of a rising of representatives of the people under Core, who is not a Levite, against the ecclesiastical authority of the tribe of Levi; and a third, which is merely a retouched version of the second, telling of the struggle of the non-Aaronic Levites under Core, who is now a Levite, against the exclusive priesthood vested in the family of Aaron. But it may be asked what possible object a redactor could have had in combining the narrative of a rebellion against civil authority with another having for its moral to warn against usurpation of the priesthood. The story presents nothing improbable. We need not search deeply into history to find similar examples of parties with different, or even conflicting interests, uniting for a common end. It may, it is true, be resolved into two fairly complete narratives. But many an historical account can thus be divided by using the arbitrary methods here applied, picking out sentences or parts of sentences here and there and rejecting as later additions whatever militates against division. The literary argument is too weak and too uncertain to base a theory upon it.

HUMMELAUER, Comm. in Num. (Paris, 1899), 129 sq.; PALIS in Dict. de la Bib., II, 969. For the critical view: SELBIE, in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bib., III, 11 sq.; GRAY, Comm. Num. (New York, 1903), 186 sq.; DRIVER, Lit. Old Test. (6th ed., New York, 1897), 63 sq.

F. BECHTEL

Corea

Vicariate apostolic, coextensive with the Empire of Corea; it was created a distinct vicariate Apostolic, 9 September, 1831. But for nearly half a century before that time Corea had many fervent Catholics. In a manner perhaps unique in the annals of the Church, the Faith was introduced there without preaching and before any missionaries had penetrated the country. The educated people, more eager for new knowledge the more their country was jealously closed, procured through the annual embassy to Peking all the books possible upon science, literature, etc. Some Christian books fell into their hands, and, the grace of God aiding, they recognized the truth. One of them, Ni-seung-houn, undertook in 1784 the journey to Peking and was baptized there, under the name of Peter. Upon his return he baptized his companions, who, like himself, were men of learning and high position. That their faith was firm, events proved. In 1791 Paul Youn and Jacques Kouen sealed their belief with their blood for having refused to offer sacrifice upon the occasion of the death of their relatives. Connected by reason of its origin with the Church of Peking, Corea was dependent upon that vicariate until 1831. About the year 1794, a Chinese priest, Father Jacques Tjyou, was sent to Corea. Upon his arrival he found about 4000 faithful. After seven years of a heroic and fruitful ministry he was arrested and put to death, 31 May, 1801. Before and after him numerous Christians suffered martyrdom with admirable fortitude. Among them particular mention is due to the married couple, Jean Ryou and Luthgarde Ni. Shaken and decimated by the tempest, and deprived of its priests, the Christian religion was preserved by the zeal of the fervent people, voluntary catechists, who rallied the dispersed, and made unheard-of efforts to obtain pastors from the Bishop of Peking or the sovereign pontiff. It was at this time that the vicariate Apostolic was established, and confided to the Society of Foreign Missions of Paris. The first vicar Apostolic named, Mgr. Bruguière, came from the mission of Siam. He started upon his journey in 1832, suffered incredible hardships in passing through China and Mongolia, and died in Tatary, just as he was completing arrangements to enter the country of his mission. His companion, Father Maubant, succeeded in crossing the northern frontier by way of Eui-tjyou, and in January, 1836, entered the closed country. The following year Father Chasten joined him there, and, a little later, the new vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Imbert. Under their ministration Christianity soon flourished. All this went on with the greatest secrecy; the least indiscretion would have caused all to be lost. The edicts proscribing Christianity remained as rigorous as ever, and all, both pastors and flock, lived as upon the eve of battle, preparing themselves for martyrdom.

The persecution broke out in 1839, many Christians were arrested, tortured, and put to death; the missionaries were hunted without mercy. Mgr. Imbert was the first to be taken, and, thinking that the capture of his two companions would cause the persecution to cease, he directed them to deliver themselves up; they responded heroically to the call, and all three were beheaded, 21 September, 1839. It was not until 1845 that a new bishop, Mgr. Ferréol, succeeded in entering Corea; he brought with him a young missionary and also the first Corean priest, André Kim, who had made his studies at Macao, and who was taken and executed the following year. His cause, and those of the Venerable Mgrs. Imbert, Maubant, and Chastan, and of the principal Corean martyrs, eighty-two in all, were introduced in the Roman Court by a decree of 24 September, 1857. The country remained more firmly closed than ever, the Christian religion more severely proscribed, and the entrance of apostolic workers more perilous and difficult. Admission to Corea was most often accomplished by way of the sea, a Chinese barque bringing the missionaries with great secrecy to the coast of Corea, where a Corean ship, under cover of the darkness, would go to meet them. Father Maistre spent ten years in vain attempts and useless expeditions before he was able to set foot in Corea. Notwithstanding these difficulties, and numerous local persecutions, during twenty years the mission prospered. In 1866 it counted upwards of 25,000 faithful, two bishops, and ten missionaries. A terrible persecution then broke out, the two bishops and seven missionaries were taken and executed: Mgr. Berneux, vicar Apostolic, with Fathers Beaulieu, Dorie, and de Bretenières (8 March); Father Pourthié, pro-vicar, and Father Petitnicolas (10 March); and Mgr. Daveluy, the coadjutor, with Fathers Aumaître and Huin (30 March). Numbers of the laity also suffered martyrdom, while other perished of distress and hunger in the mountains. The process, or formal declaration, of the martyrdom of the two bishops, of the seven missionaries, and of twenty of the principal Christians, was sent in 1901 to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The three surviving missionaries, unable to maintain themselves in the country, were obliged to return to China. This persecution, which occurred during the second year of the reign of the emperor who abdicated in 1907, was not precisely his fault. During his minority the power was exercised by his father, known under the name of Tai-ouen-koun, prince-regent. Of a suspicious and violent character, the regent believed that the extermination of the Catholics in Corea was the best policy to follow. Later he recognized his mistake and repented of it.

A French attempt, known as the Kang-hoa expedition, made to avenge the murder of the French missionaries, was not prosecuted with sufficient vigour, and merely served to revive the persecution which lasted as long as the regent remained in power. In 1876, after an interval of ten years, the new vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Ridel, succeeded in sending two missionaries to Corea; he himself entered the following year with two others. But after some months of sojourn in Seoul his retreat became known and he was thrown into prison. Upon the demand of the French minister to Peking, the Corean Government consented to send him back to China; in 1879, Father Deguette, arrested in turn, was also sent back after several months of captivity. The bloody era was closed; nevertheless the missionaries were obliged to continue their life of seclusion. Liberty came to them only with the treaty of commerce, concluded with the different Powers towards the year 1884. Upon their return in 1876 they found but 10,000 Christians; since then this number has grown from year to year. The Catholic Coreans numbered in 1885, 14,039; 1890, 17,577; 1895, 25,998; 1900, 42,441; 1905, 58,593; and in 1907, 63,340. From 1876 dates the spread of the ordinary mission-labours which the persecution had not permitted to develop.

In 1888 the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres were called to take charge of the orphanages. In each district some chapels have been built, with residences for the missionaries. In 1892 a seminary was built at Ryong-saun near Seoul. The quasi-cathedral church of Seoul was solemnly consecrated 29 May, 1898. The parish schools have been opened anew, or organized upon a better footing. It has even been possible to open in the great centres a few schools for girls, a thing which Corean usage would never before have permitted. In 1875 the missionaries published a dictionary and a grammar in French and Corean. The movable type then cast has served as a standard for all that is used to-day. The mission possesses a printing-house for the publication of Corean Catholic books, and of a weekly Corean Catholic newspaper, founded in 1906, which counts more than 4000 subscribers. As a striking event of this period may be noted the conversion to Catholicism of the princess, the mother of the emperor and the true wife of the terrible regent. Christian in her heart even before the persecution of 1866, she was baptized and confirmed 11 October, 1896, but in great secrecy and unknown even to those about her. The following year she received, under the same conditions, the Sacraments of Penance and of Holy Eucharist, and died piously 8 January, 1898. The Vicars Apostolic of Corea have been: Barthélémy Bruguière (1831-35); Laurent-Marie-Joseph Imbert (1837-39); Jean-Joseph Ferréol (1843-53); Siméon-François Berneux (1854-66); Marie-Antoine Nicolas Daveluy (1857-66); Félix Clair Ridel (1870-84); Jean-Marie-Gustave Blanc (1884-90); Gustave-Charles-Marie Mutel (1890-).

The following statistics show the state of the missions in 1907: 1 bishop; 46 French missionaries; 10 Corean priests; 11 French sisters; 41 Corean sisters; 72 schools for boys, with 1,014 pupils; 6 schools for girls, with 191 pupils; 2 orphanages, with 28 boys and 261 girls; 379 orphans placed in families; 2 pharmacies; 1 seminary, with 22 preparatory students and 9 theological students; 48 churches or chapels; 48 districts; 931 Christian parishes; 63,340 baptized Christians; 5,503 catechumens under instruction.

(See map of China.)

DALLET, Hist. de l'Église de Corée (Paris, 1874); PICHON, Vie de Mgr. Berneux (Le Mans, 1868); SALMON, Vie de Mgr. Daveluy (Paris, 1883); D'HULST, Vie de Just de Bretenières (Paris, 1895); BAUDRY, Vie de Henri Dorie (1867); DEYDOU, Bernard Louis Beaulieu (Bordeaux, 1894); DÉSIRÉ, Vie de M. A. Petitnicolas (1891); RAMAYET, Vie de M. L. Huin (Langres, 1893); PIACENTINI, Mgr. Ridel (Lyons, 1890); RIDEL, Ma captivité; Annals of the Propagation of the Faith (annual); PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises, III.

G. MUTEL

Corfu

ARCHDIOCESE OF CORFU.

Corfu is one of the Ionian Islands, at the entrance of the Adriatic, opposite the Albanian coast, from which it is separated by a narrow channel. Its modern name is an Italian corruption for Korphoi (pronounced Corfu), the Byzantine Greek name for the chief town of the island. The ancient name for both island and city was Cercyra or Corcyra. This has been identified with the Homeric Scheria, where reigned Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians, the host of Ulysses, and Nausicaa's father. In 735 B.C. the island received Corinthian colonists led by Chersicrates. Its navy and trade increased to such an extent that as early as 664 B.C. it could wage war upon Corinth. During the Peloponnesian War, when allied with the Athenians, Corfu fitted out 120 ships and overcame its suzerain. But internal strife soon caused the decay of its power; while the people sided with the Athenians, the aristocracy were helped by the Corinthians. From the rule of the Macedonians Corfu passed to that of the Romans. Under the Byzantines it became practically the capital of the Ionian Islands and of the neighbouring cities in Epirus (Preveza, Buthrotum, etc.), and signalized itself by courageous conflicts with Dalmatians, Bulgars, and Saracens. About the end of the twelfth century it formed a duchy under the despots of Epirus. Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, conquered it in 1274. It recovered its independence by expelling the Neapolitan garrison and took refuge in the protectorate of Venice. After the capture of Constantinople, Mohammed II sent an army which laid unsuccessful siege to Corfu to punish it for having helped Buthrotum. Solyman II was equally unsuccessful, though he took away 16,000 prisoners. In 1716 Ahmed III was also driven back, the inhabitants being helped by the Saxon general Matthias Schulenburg and inspired by a monk who led the way bearing an uplifted cross. For a brief while, together with Venice (1791), Corfu came under French rule, and was then successively conquered by the Turks and the Russians (1799). The Seven Islands were united in a republic under a Turkish and Russian protectorate. The Treaty of Tilsit gave them again to the French in 1807, but in 1809 the islands, with the exception of Corfu, fell into the power of England. In 1815 the United States of the Ionian Islands were put under the protectorate of Great Britain, with Corfu as capital and residence of the governor. On 8 March, 1864, the islands were annexed to Greece, and since this time Corfu (Gr. Kerkyra), with Paxos, Santa Maura (Leukas), and Ithaca, etc. have formed a nomarchy or province of the kingdom.

The island has a mild, salubrious climate. It is hilly, with rather barren valleys, and produces corn and oil. Brimstone and marble are among its exports. The whole population is about 70,000. Italian is still much used, together with Greek, chiefly among the Catholic population. The city of Corfu is situated on the eastern coast and boasts of a broad and good port. It exhibits ruins of a temple of Poseidon, a cenotaph of Menecrates, and a statue of Schulenburg. In 1861 the late Empress Elizabeth of Austria built there, in the purest Greek style, her magnificent palace, the Achilleion, named after a colossal statue of Achilles on one of the terraces of the park; this palace has been bought by the Emperor of Germany. The population of the city is about 17,000; 5000 Jews, 4000 Catholics, the rest orthodox Greeks.

According to legend the Church of Corfu was founded by St. Jason, a disciple of St. Paul, but the first known bishop is Apollodorus, present at Nicaea in 325. It was at first a suffragan of Nicopolis in Epirus Vetus, but in the Middle Ages was made a metropolis. Since 1900 it has again become a simple bishopric. (See "Echos d'Orient", III, 285 sqq.) Among its distinguished prelates were St. Arsenius, a tenth-century author of homilies, and Georgius Bardanes, in the thirteenth century, a fiery adversary of the Latins. (See Lequien, II, 145.) The island honours as its patron the celebrated St. Spyridon, whose relics lie in the Greek cathedral. Since the thirteenth century Corfu has also been a Catholic archiepiscopal see. The archdiocese includes Paxos, Antipaxos, other islets, and several localities in Epirus, between Parga and Sasino; the Catholics, however, have almost completely disappeared except in Corfu. There is but one parish, with six churches or chapels, and some ten priests. The Sisters of Our Lady of Compassion conduct a school and an orphanage. (For the episcopal list see Lequien, III, 877, completed by Gams, 399, and Eubel, I, 217, II, 152.) Among the archbishops, the famous Benedictine Cardinal, Angelo Maria Quirini, who died in Italy in 1759, deserves mention.

MARMORA, Historia di Corfù (Venice, 1672); QUIRINI, Primordia Corcyrae (Lecce, 1725; Briscia, 1738); MOUSTOXYDES, Illustrazioni Corciresi (Milan, 1811); Delle cose Corciresi (Corfu, 1848); RIEMANN, Corfou (Paris, 1879); LAMPROS, kerkyraika anekdota (Athens, 1882); HIDROMENOS, Synoptike historia tes anekdota (Corfu, 1895); JERVIS, History of Corfu (London, 1852); CLAPARÈDE, Corfou et les Corfiotes (Paris, 1900).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Coria

(Cauria; Cauriensis)

Diocese in Spain, suffragan of Toledo; it includes nearly the entire province of Céceres, with the exception of a few parishes that belong to the Diocese of Salamanca. The first mention of a Diocese of Coria is in 589 when its bishop, Jacintus, subscribed the acts of the Third Council of Toledo. Under Visigothic rule Coria was a suffragan of Merida. During the Arab conquest the episcopal list was continued by means of titular bishops; one of them, Jacobus, appears among the prelates who assisted at the consecration of the church of Compostela in 876. After the reconquest of the city (1142) Alfonso VII turned the mosque into a cathedral, and had it reconstructed in honour of the Blessed Virgin and all the saints.

The first bishop of the new series was Iñigo Navarrón. The statistics for 1906 were: Catholics, 171,041; priests, 250; parishes, 124; churches, 159; chapels, 186.

FLÓREZ. España Sagr. (Madrid, 1759), XIV, 52-61; DÁVILA in Teatro de las Iglesias de España (Madrid, 1647), II, 433-76.

EDUARDO DE HINOJOBA

Corinth

(CORINTHUS)

A titular archiepiscopal see of Greece. The origin of Corinth belongs to prehistoric legend. About 1100 B.C. this city, delivered from the Argives by the Dorian invasion, became the centre of the Heracleid rule in Peloponnesus; at this time it waged successful wars against neighbouring cities, including Athens. A little later, under the tyranny of the Bacchiadae (750-657 B.C.), it founded many colonies, among them Corcyra and Syracuse. About 657 B.C. a revolution substituted for tyranny a government based on popular election; from that time Corinth took no great part in Greek history, except as the scene of the Isthmian games and by the transit duty it imposed on all goods passing by its citadel. Its name is scarcely mentioned during the Medic wars, and after beginning the Peloponnesian war (432-404) it handed the direction of it over to Sparta and later on abandoned its ally. The foreign policy of this submissive vassal of Philip (later the federal centre, but not the inspirer, of the Achaean league) was never positive and domestic; its true glory was its luxury, riches, and artistic culture. It gave its name to the third and most ornamental of the orders of Greek architecture. Corinth was captured and plundered by Mummius (146 B.C.), restored and embellished again by Caesar and Hadrian, and ravaged in turn by the Heruli, Visigoths, and Slavs. In 1205 it was captured by the French, who gave it up to the Venetians, by whom it was held, excepting brief intervals, until 1715. The Turks left it in 1821, and in 1858, after a severe earthquake, it was transferred to the western shore of the gulf. The new town, in the provinces of Argolis and Corinthia, has about 4500 inhabitants, and exports dried currants, oil, corn, and silk. The ancient site is now occupied by a wretched village, Palaeo-Corinthos, or Old Corinth, with five churches, probably built where temples had formerly stood. Near by are the lofty Acropolis (Acro-Corinthus) and ruins of a temple and amphitheatre. The ship canal between the bay of Corinth and the gulf of AEgina, about four miles in length, was opened 8 November, 1893; it had been begun by Nero, and is in great part cut through the solid rock.

St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

LEBAS AND FOUCART, Inscriptions du Péloponnèse; BEULÉ, L'art grec avant Périclès; PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, Hist. de l'art dans l'antiquité; SPON, Voyage d'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant (Amsterdam, 1679), II, 223 sq.; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (London, 1878), I, 674-86.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis

French mathematician, born at Paris, in 1792; died in the same city, 1843. He entered the Ecole Polytechnique in 1808, and later continued his studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées. Though determined to become an engineer, he did not enter upon the practice of his profession, but became instead, in the year 1816, a tutor in mathematical analysis and mechanics at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1838 he succeeded Dulong as director of studies in the same school. He became a member of the Académie des Sciences in 1836. Coriolis was a man of much ability, but his delicate health prevented him from doing justice to his powers. He was a successful educator and together with Gen. Poncelet was one of the pioneers of reform in the methods of teaching mechanics. While engaged in teaching, he at the same time carried on his researches in theoretical and applied mechanics. The theorem enunciated by him regarding relative motions has found numerous applications, particularly in the case of motions taking place on the surface of the earth: as, for example, the deviation towards the east of falling bodies, the apparent rotation of the plane of vibration of a pendulum, etc. Coriolis was the author of "Calcul de l'effet des machines" (1829), which was reprinted in 1844 with the title "Traité de la mécanique des corps solides", and of "Théorie mathématique du jeu de billard" (1835). He also published a number of articles, notably in the "Dictionnaire de l'industrie".

MARIE, Hist. des sciences math. et phys. (Paris, 1888), XII, 190.

HENRY M. BROCK

Diocese of Cork

(Corcagia, Corcagiensis).

In Ireland, suffragan of Cashel. St. Finbarr was the founder and first bishop of this see. He was born about the middle of the sixth century at Rathculleen, six miles north of Bandon, and educated in Leinster. Having spent some time on "a green island" in Gougane Barra, he founded a monastery and a school at Lough Eirc, the name given to the marshy expansion of the river Lee, on which the city is built, and from which both city and diocese derive the name Cork (corcagh, "marsh"). This monastery seems to have been erected on the elevated plateau to the south of the city, now known as the Rock, close by the palace of the Protestant bishop. Soon many students flocked thither from various parts. They and those interested in them rapidly took possession of the large island in the marsh beneath, built on it and so gave birth to a city which now numbers over 70,000 inhabitants, and is the residence of the saint's episcopal successor.

The limits of the territory over which St. Finbarr ruled cannot be accurately defined today. A fact, however, not generally recognized by historians enables us to conclude that the boundaries were sufficiently clear even in the most ancient times. Finbarr's father was chief metal-worker to Tigherneach, chief of Ui Eachach Mumhan. As the saint advanced in years he was venerated as a patron by the entire sept, and so obtained spiritual jurisdiction over their wide territories. The eastern and western limits were respectively Cork and Mizzen Head, and there are arguments to show that the northern and southern were the Avonmore (Blackwater) and the ocean. In the Synod of Rathbreasail (1110) these are also named as the limits of the Diocese of Cork, whence it would appear that the sept lands and the diocese were coterminous, as was the case with St. Faughnan's Diocese of Ross, which coincides with the lands of the O'Driscolls; and that of St. Munchin, Limerick, with those of Ui Fighente, in later times O'Donovans. At some period after the twelfth century part of the territory between the Lee and Blackwater to the north was detached in favour of the neighbouring Diocese of Cloyne; the land of the O'Driscolls had been already erected into the Diocese of Ross; and today Cork is approximately bounded on the north by the city and suburbs, and the River Lee as far as Gougane Barra, on the east by Cork Harbour, on the south by the Diocese of Ross and the ocean, and on the west by Bantry Bay.

The church and monastery founded by St. Finbarr were naturally the centre of the diocese till the sixteenth century. For many years the successor to the first abbot was also bishop of the diocese. Other churches and monasteries, however, grew up in the city itself and in the territories over which he ruled. In a document dated 1199, in which Innocent III confirms to the Bishop of Cork his various privileges, mention is made of eight churches in the city, the first being Sancta Maria in Monte, doubtless St. Mary's, Shandon, close by which stands the Catholic cathedral of today. Two centuries later (1309), in the will of John de Wychedon, we find the names of no fewer than fifteen churches, all in the city, four of them bearing names such as "Lepers of Dilby", "Lepers of Glenamore"; but a hundred years after this (1462), in a charter of Edward IV, we find only eleven churches mentioned of the churches in country districts during this long period we have no definite account. The Carmelites were introduced into Kinsale in 1334 by Robert Balrain; much earlier, in the seventh century, we find mention of Saint Gobban, abbot of a monastery of regular canons in the same town. In Bantry Dermot O'Sullivan Beare built a convent for Franciscans about 1463, and McCarthy Lauder had done likewise at Balymacadane on the Bandon Road in 1460. Tracton Abbey, two miles west from Carrigaline, was begun in 1224, and the great monastery of Kilcrea, five miles west of Cork, was founded by MacCarthy Mor in 1466, who is interred in the middle of the choir.

At the Reformation, when Bishop Bennett was deprived of the temporalities of the see (1535), such of the churches as remained passed into Protestant hands. Among others the old church of St. Finbarr, called Gill Abbey, after a famous bishop of the twelfth century (1152-72), seems to have remained in some form till 1725. At that date it was removed to make room for a more modern building, which in turn has been succeeded by the present Protestant cathedral. After the Sequestration the Catholics had perforce to rest contented with very humble "Mass-houses", as contemporary accounts describe them. In the reports given by government officials in 1731 we find many of them put down as huts; and the addition "built since George the 1st" applied to the names of many more. The existing churches of the diocese have been erected in recent years on, or near, the sites of these last monuments of persecution. In the five parishes into which the city is divided there are thirteen public churches, besides private oratories and chapels attached to institutions. In each of the thirty parishes in country districts there are one, two, or three churches, according to the population, all of recent erection, and built in a manner that befits the great mysteries they enclose. Of the city parishes two--that called the North, or St. Mary's, and that of Sts. Peter and Paul--are held by the bishop. In the former stands the pro-cathedral, begun by Dr. Moylan in 1729, a red sandstone structure, overlooked by a magnificent tower of the same material, due to the energy of a well-known Cork priest.

The lists of successors to St. Finbarr in the bishopric vary considerably with the different authorities. The present (1908) occupant of the see is described as the 59th, or the 105th, from the first bishop. The latter number seems to be the more correct, though somewhat too large. Two have been raised to the altars of the Church--St. Nessan and Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy. The veneration of the former dates from ancient times, that of the latter from 1492, when he died a pilgrim at Ivrea in Piedmont, Italy. First appointed Bishop of Ross, and expelled therefrom on a false charge, he was nominated to the united Dioceses of Cork and Cloyne. Unable to occupy the see owing to the opposition of the Geraldines, etc., he journeyed to Rome, won his cause, but died amid wonderful evidences of sanctity on the return journey. The decree of his beatification was published in 1895. Giolla Aedh O'Muighin (1152-72) was a famous bishop. He practically refounded the old monastery of St. Finbarr; like his great predecessor he belonged to a Connacht clan. The Four Masters speak of him as "the tower of the virginity and wisdom of the time".

Three centuries after his death (1430), at the instance of the Bishop of Cloyne, the two Dioceses of Cork and Cloyne were united, and remained thus for three hundred years (1747). During the seventeenth century the united bishoprics were more than once governed by vicars apostolic. This occurred in 1614-22, and again in 1666-76. During the same period Catholic citizens of Cork were more than once expelled for their religion; frequently the Catholics of the province were forbidden to live in walled towns or fortified places (1644, 56, 72). In 1693, on the representation of King James, the administration of Ross was given to the reigning Bishop Sleyne. It seems to have remained in the hands of his successors until 1747, when it passed into the jurisdiction of the newly enfranchised Bishopric of St. Colman.

The Diocese of Cork possessed a chapter, with twelve prebendaries and the usual dignitaries. Though re-established by Dr. Delaney in 1858-59, it dates from the twelfth century; naturally it ceased to exist during the years of persecution. The religious orders and congregations in the diocese are eight in number: Augustinians (second foundation, Red Abbey, in fifteenth century); Dominicans (first foundation Abbey of the Island, 1229); Friars Minor (first foundation near Wise's Hill, 1214); Carmelites (Kinsale); Franciscan Capuchins; Vincentians; Fathers of Charity; Society of African Missions, the last four being quite modern foundations. There are in addition two teaching orders of men, the Christian and Presentation Brothers, besides 11 communities of nuns; the latter are: Presentation (4 houses), Ursulines (2 houses), Sisters of Mercy (4 houses), Sisters of Charity (4 houses), Good Shepherd (1 house), French Sisters of Charity (2 houses), Sisters of Marie Réparatrice (1 house), Bon Secours (1 house), Sisters of the Poor (1 house), Sisters of the Assumption (1 house), the last nursing the poor in their own homes.

At the census of 1891 the Catholic population of the diocese numbered 178,461. They are attended by one bishop and 114 priests, who administer 35 parishes, of which 5 are in the city. Kilcrea Abbey and Gougane Barra are the best preserved among the early monuments of the diocese. A great part of the former still stands. The latter is an island on which are the ruins of a square court, with walls fourteen feet thick, in which are eight cells or cloisters rudely arched over. Each of the cells is ten feet deep by seven broad, and the court fifty feet square. It was here that St. Finbarr prepared himself by prayer and seclusion in the lonely shadows of the mountains that surround the lake for the great work of founding a city and a diocese.

BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Ireland, and Scotland (Rome, 1876), II, 78-98; Archæolopical Journal (Cork), passim; SMITH, Cork (1750, new ed. 1815), with Notes by CROKER and CAULFIELD (Cork, 1893); TUCKEY, Cork Remembrances (Cork, 1837); LYNCH, Cambrensis Eversus (1662), passim; O'DONOVAN (ed.), Annals of the Four Masters, passim; CUSACK, History of the City and County (Dublin, 1875); GIBSON, Hist. of the County and City of Cork (London, 1861).

P. SEXTON

School of Cork

The monastic School of Cork had a wide reputation, especially in the seventh and eighth centuries. The name is derived from the Irish corcagh, which means a marsh, for in ancient times the floods of the River Lee covered the low ground on which most of the present city of Cork was afterwards built. The founder of the School and Diocese of Cork was Barra or Bairre (Barry), more commonly called Finbarr the Fair-haired. His family belonged to the Hy Brinin Ratha, a tribe that dwelt on the eastern shore of Lough Corrib, in the County Galway; but his father, a skilful cerd, or certified worker in brass, was forced to migrate to Hy Liathain, in the west of the County Cork, where the saint was born about the middle of the sixth century. His chief teacher was a certain MacCuirp, or Curporius, who himself, it is said, had been a student under St. Gregory the Great in Rome. To perfect himself in the science of the saints, Barra retired to a hermitage in a small island of the lonely lake which still bears his name, Gougane Barra. Callanan's splendid poem in praise of the romantic beauty of this lake has made its name familiar to all Irishmen. From Gougane Barra, it would appear, Barra returned to his native territory, where he founded some dozen churches before he finally established himself near the marsh of Lough Eirc (Eirce), which appears to have been the original name of the place. There he founded a monastic school about 620, which in a short time attracted a multitude of students and produced many great scholars. The Irish "Life of Finbarr" gives the names of a dozen of these holy and learned men, who in turn became founders of churches and schools in the South of Ireland. The most distinguished of them was St. Colman Mac Ua Cluasaigh, Ferlegind or professor in the School of Cork about the year 664.

At that time all Ireland was devastated by a terrible yellow plague which carried off two-thirds of the population. There was a prevalent idea that the pestilence could not, or at least did not, extend beyond nine waves from the shore. So Colman and his pupils wisely resolved to migrate from their monastery in the marshes of Cork to one of the islands in the high sea. Being a poet and a holy man he composed a poem, mostly in Irish, committing himself and his pupils to the protection of God and His saints, especially the patron saints of Erin. As they sought their island refuge the students chanted the poem verse by verse, each one reciting his own stanza until it was finished, and then they began again. Fortunately most of this poem still survives, and is printed in the "Leabhar Imuin" or "Book of Hymns" (edited by J. H. Todd, Dublin, 1855-69). The language is of the most archaic type of Gaelic, and is interspersed here and there with phrases mostly taken from Scripture but made to rhyme with each other as the Gaelic lines themselves do. The School of Cork continued to flourish for many centuries, even after the Danes had established themselves there, in 874 we find recorded the death of a "Scribe of Cork", and in 891 we are told of the death of a certain son of Connudh, "a scribe, wise man, bishop and abbot of Cork". In 1134 the ancient monastery and School of Cork, which had fallen into decay, were refounded by the celebrated Cormac MacCarthy, King of Munster. (See FINBARR, SAINT.)

TODD, Book of Hymns (Dublin, 1869), II; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); Latin Lives of St. Finbarr, ed. CAULFIELD (London, 1864); O HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, 25 Sept.; FORBES in Dict. of Christ. Biog., I, 266 sq.; LANIGAN, Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II, 314 sqq.

JOHN HEALY

Maurus Corker

An English Benedictine, born in 1636 in Yorkshire; died 22 December, 1715, at Paddington near London. His baptismal name, James, he exchanged for Maurus when he entered the order. On 23 April, 1656, he took vows at the English Benedictine Abbey of Lamspringe near Hildesheim, in Germany, and returned to England as missionary in 1665. Being accused by Titus Oates of implication in "the Popish Plot" he was imprisoned in Newgate, but was acquitted of treason by a London jury, 18 July, 1679. Hereupon he was arraigned for being a priest and sentenced to death, 17 January, 1680. Through influential friends he was granted a reprieve and detained in Newgate. While thus confined he is said to have reconciled more than a thousand Protestants to the Faith. One of his fellow-prisoners at Newgate was the saintly Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, with whom he formed an intimate friendship, and whom he prepared for his martyrdom, which took place, 15 June, 1681. Some very interesting correspondence which was carried on in prison between these two confessors of the Faith was published in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Record" (Sept., 1883). On the accession of James II in 1685, Father Corker was released and kept at the court as resident ambassador of Prince-Bishop Ferdinand of Bavaria, the Elector of Cologne. In 1687 he erected the little convent of St. John at Clerkenwell, where religious services were held for the public, but which was destroyed by a mob, 11 November, 1688, during the revolt against King James. Father Corker himself was obliged to seek refuge on the continent. In 1691 he was made Abbot of Cismar near Lübeck and, two years later, of Lamspringe, where he had made his religious profession. In 1696 he resigned as abbot and returned to England to continue his missionary labours. He is the author of various pamphlets proving the innocence of those condemned for implication in the fictitious "Popish Plot."

GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Eng. Cath. s. v.; WELDON, Chronicle of the English Benedictine Monks (London, 1881), 219, etc.; CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests (Derby, 1843) II; MORAN, in Irish Eccl. Record, IV, 613 sq.; TAUNTON, The English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1898), II, passim; SPILLMANN, Die Blutzeugen aus den Tagen der Titus Oates Verschwörung (Freiburg im Br., 1901), 135 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Cormac MacCuilenan

(836-908).

An Irish bishop and King of Cashel, Cormac MacCquilenan was of the race of Eoghanact, of Southern Ireland, and in his early years received a good education in one of the Irish schools. He was ordained priest, and afterwards appointed Bishop of Cashel. In the year 900 he became, on account of his descent, King of Cashel, and thus were combined in his person the two offices of spiritual and temporal ruler of Leth Moga, as the southern portion of Ireland was called. The ardri (high king), Flann, assisted by the King of Leinster, led his forces into the Southern Province (906), and was met by the Munstermen under Cormac at Moylena (Tullamore). The ardri suffered a signal defeat. Later on, however (908) Flann, assisted by Ceorbhall, King of Leinster, and Cathal, King of Connaught, returned to the attack, apparently because Cormac, instigated by Flaherty, Abbot of Inniscathay, had claimed tribute from Leinster, and had even signified his intention of assuming the position of ardri. The battle was fought at the present Ballymoon; the Munstermen suffered a complete defeat and Cormac was killed in the battle. An Irish Glossary called "Sanas Chormaic", containing etymologies and explanations of over 1400 Irish words has come down to us. Though, etymologically, the work is of little value, yet on account of the light it throws upon many ancient Irish customs and institutions it is of great importance to the historian. The "Glossary of Cormac" is said to be only a part of the "Saltair Chaisil", also attributed to Cormac. This work, if it ever existed, has disappeared, or, as W. Stokes thinks, it is more likely that at best the "Saltair Chaisil" was only a collection of transcripts of manuscripts from the hands of different writers. The above-mentioned "Sanas Chormaic", or "Cormac's Glossary", was translated and annotated by John O'Donovan and edited by W. Stokes (Calcutta, 1868). See Stokes, "Three Irish Glossaries" (London, 1862).

O'DONOVAN, The Annals of Ireland (Dublin), I, II; O'CURRY, Manuscript Materials of Irish History (Dublin, 1873); O'DONOVAN ed., Books of Rights in Publications of Celtic Society; WEBB, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); D'ALTON, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1903), I.

JAMES MACCAFFREY

Elena Lucrezia Piscopia Cornaro

A learned Italian woman of noble descent, born at Venice, 5 June, 1646; died at Padua, 26 July, 1684. Her father, Giovanni Battista Cornaro, was Procurator of St. Mark's. At the age of seven she began the study of Latin and Greek under distinguished instructors, and soon became proficient in these languages. She also mastered Hebrew, Spanish, French, and Arabic, earning the title of "Oraculum Septilingue". Her later studies included mathematics, philosophy, and theology. In 1665 she took the habit of a Benedictine Oblate without, however, becoming a nun. In compliance with her father's wishes she entered the University of Padua and after a brilliant course of study received the doctorate in philosophy. The degree was conferred 25 June, 1678, in the cathedral of Padua in presence of many persons eminent for learning and rank. Elena was a member of various academies and was esteemed throughout Europe for her attainments and virtues. The last seven years of her life were devoted to study and charity. She was buried in the church of Santa Giustina at Padua and her statue was placed in the university. Her writings, published at Parma in 1688, include academic discourses, translations, and devotional treatises. In 1685 the University of Padua caused a medal to be struck in her honour. In 1895 Abbess Mathilda Pynsent of the English Benedictine Nuns in Rome had Elena's tomb opened, the remains placed in a new casket, and a suitable tablet inscribed to her memory.

Biographies (in Italian) by DEZA (Venice, 1686); LUPIS (Venice, 1689); BACCHINI (Parma, 1688); more recently, DE SANTI (Rome, 1899); ABBESS PYNSENT, Life of Helen Lucretia Cornaro (Rome, 1896). For an account of the bibliography see Civiltà Cattolica (Rome, 1898-1899), 17th series vols. IV, V; BAILEY, A Daughter of the Doges in Amer. Cath. Quart. Review (Philadelphia, 1896), XXI, 820.

E. A. PACE

Jean-Baptiste Corneille

French painter, etcher, and engraver, b. at Paris between 1646 and 1649; d. there, 12 April, 1695. He was the youngest son of Michel Corneille of Orléans, and brother of the younger Michel. He is known as "the younger, Corneille". His devoted father was his teacher and painstakingly prepared the youth for his future successes as an historical painter. In 1664 he won the second prize and in 1668 the first prize of the academy. He then went to study in Rome and, on his return in 1675 was received into the Royal Academy, painting for his reception-picture the "Punishment of Busiris by Hercules", now one of the notable canvases in the Louvre. He painted in some of the Paris churches and in 1679 finished his "Deliverance of St. Peter from Prison" for the Cathedral of Notre-Dame. With Jacques Vouet he was employed on the decorations of the Tuileries. In 1692 he was appointed professor in the academy.

His style, like his brother's, was that of the school of the Desiderosi, but Jean was somewhat inferior to the younger Michel in composition and drawing. Many of the paintings of this excellent artist were engraved by contemporaries, a few by the great Mariette, and Jean himself engraved and etched plates after his own designs and finished pictures, and after the Carracci. His work with acid and the burin was spirited and exhibited his thorough mastery of technic. He commenced and finished his plates after the manner of Agostino Carracci. His most important plates were: "Bust of Michelangelo", "St. Bernard", "Mercury in the Air", and "St. John in the Wilderness" (after Annibale Carracci).

For bibliography, see article CORNEILLE, MICHEL (the Younger).

LEIGH HUNT

Michel Corneille (the Younger)

French painter, etcher and engraver, b. in Paris in 1642; d. at the Gobelins manufactory at Paris, 16 August, 1708. He was the son of an artist, Michel Corneille of Orléans, and on this account is sometimes called the "younger Michel". He is also and more commonly known as the "elder Corneille" (Corneille l'Aîné), to distinguish him from a younger brother, Jean-Baptiste Corneille, also a painter. His father was the first and the most indefatigable of his teachers; his other masters were Mignard and the celebrated Lebrun. Devoting himself wholly to historical painting, Michel won the Academy Prize and went to Rome on the king's pension; but feeling his genius hampered by the restrictions of the prize, he gave up the money so that he might study the antique in his own way. Coming under the then powerful influence of the Eclectics, he studied with the Carracci and modelled his style on theirs. In 1663 he returned to Paris and was elected a member of the Royal Academy, his picture on entering being "Our Lord's Appearance to St. Peter after His Resurrection". In 1673 he became an adjunct, and, in 1690, a full, professor in the Academy.

Corneille painted for the king at Versailles, Meudon, and Fontainebleau, and decorated in fresco many of the great Paris churches, notably Notre-Dame, the church of the Capuchins, and the chapel of Saint-Grégoire in the Invalides. His style, reminiscent of the old masters, is the conventional style of the Eclectics; his drawing is remarkably careful and exact, the expression on the faces of his religious subjects is dignified and noble, the management of chiaroscuro excellent, and the composition harmonious, but suggestive of the Venetian School. From his insufficient knowledge of the composition of pigments, the colour in many of his pictures has suffered such a change that it is to-day disagreeable; but the artist possessed a good colour-sense, and contemporary records go to prove that his colour was refined and pleasing. He etched and engraved over a hundred plates in a bold and free style, for he was a master of the line; but he subsequently spoiled the effect by too much and too precise work with the graver. A dishonest dealer put Raphael's name on some of Michel Corneille's plates, and for a long time no one disputed their attribution to the great master. For many years Corneille resided at the Gobelins manufactory, and was sometimes called "Corneille des Gobelins". Among his paintings are a "Repose in Egypt", now in the Louvre, and a "Baptism of Constantine", in the museum at Bordeaux. Among his more important etched and engraved works are: "The Nativity"; "Flight into Egypt"; "Abraham journeying with Lot" (wrongly ascribed to Raphael), and "Jacob wrestling with the Angel", a plate after Annibale Caracci.

Mémoires inédits sur la vie et les ouvrages de l'Académie royale de peinture (Paris, 1884); Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon (Berlin, 1870); DURRIEN, La peinture à l'exposition de primitifs français (Paris, 1904).

LEIGH HUNT

Michel Corneille (the Elder)

French painter, etcher, and engraver, b. in Orléans about 1601; d. at Paris, 1664. He was one of many who studied with that celebrated master, Simon Vouet, who exerted a despotic influence over the French School, and impressed his artistic personality so strongly on all his pupils. Michel devoted himself to historical paintings, and was one of the twelve original members of the Royal Academy at its foundation in 1648. He became its rector in 1656. He was an excellent colourist — in this more Venetian than French — and his early style resembled that of Simon Vouet; later his work had all the merits and all the faults of the post-Raphaelite, or decadent, "sweet", school of Italian art, showing the far-reaching influence of the Carracci. He was long employed in the decoration of churches in Paris, his masterpiece being the celebrated "St. Paul and St. Barnabas at Lystra", painted for the Cathedral of Notre-Dame. His etched and engraved work differed very little from that of the Carracci and of his two sons. It was chiefly reproductive. Notable examples are the "Murder of the Innocents", after Raphael, and the "Virgin Suckling the Infant Jesus", after Lodovico Carracci.

MEYER, Geschichte der französischen Malerei (Leipzig, 1867); see, also, bibliography under CORNEILLE, MICHEL (the Younger).

LEIGH HUNT

Pierre Corneille

A French dramatist, b. at Rouen, 6 June, 1606; d. at Paris, 1 October, 1684. His father, Pierre Corneille, was avocat du roi and maître des eaux et forêts in the Vicomté of Rouen. His mother, Marthe Lepesant, belonged to an old family of Normandy. He was educated at the Jesuit college in Rouen, studied law at Caen, and was admitted to the Bar in 1624. Four years later he was granted the office of Advocate to the Admiralty. Although the duties of his charge allowed him leisure enough to follow his poetical vocation, he soon quitted the Bar and went to Paris, in 1629. The first comedy he produced, "Mélite" (1629), met with so great a success that he resolved to write for the stage. Other plays followed rapidly: "Clitandre" (1632), "La Veuve", "La galerie du palais" (1633), "La suivante", "La place royale" (1634), "Méée" (1635), "L'illusion comique" (1636). Cardinal Richelieu, who took a great interest in dramatic matters and was even the writer of several plays, realized that the young author had some talent and enrolled him, in 1633, among "the five authors", whose functions consisted in revising and polishing the plays written by the great politician. Corneille was too independent a genius to get along with the autocratic playwright; he was dismissed, in 1635, because he had no esprit de suite, and returned to Rouen.

The year 1636 saw the production of "Le Cid", which marked the beginning of a new epoch in the French drama. Its remarkable success aroused Richelieu's anger and jealousy to such a degree that the French Academy, which was so much indebted to the great cardinal, was obliged to crtiicize the play in a public pamphlet, known as "Les sentiments de l'Académie sur le Cid", written, under command, by Chapelain. The public, however, admired "Le Cid" none the less, and, as Boileau said, "all Paris saw Rodrigue with the same eyes as Chimène". After a silence of four years Corneille brought out "Horace" and "Cinna" (1640). The poet was then in full possession of his talent and from this time to the year 1651 produced a series of plays, most of which are masterpieces: "Polyeucte", a Christian tragedy, perhaps the most perfect of Corneille's plays; "Pompée"; "Le Menteur" (1643), a comedy; "Théodore, vierge et martyre", a very poor drama which failed; "La suite du menteur" (1645); "Rodogune" (1646); "Héraclius" (1647); "Andromède" (1650); "Don Sanche d'Aragon" (1650); "Nicomède" (1651).

Corneille was elected to the French Academy in 1647. After "Pertharite" (1653), which was a decided failure, he resolved to quit the stage, and in his retreat at Rouen began to translate the "Imitation of Christ" at the solicitation of Queen Anne of Austria. A few years later, yielding to Fouquet's entreaties, he began again to write plays: "Œdipe" (1659), "Sertorius" (1662), "Sophonisbe" (1663), "Othon" (1664), "Agésilas" (1666), "Attila" (1667), "Tite et Bérénice" (1670), "Pulchérie" (1672), "Suréna" (1674), which, in spite of a few sparks of genius, show too well the decline of a once powerful playwright. Besides his plays Corneille wrote in prose "Discours sur l'art dramatique et examens" (1660), and contributed several poems to the "Guirlande de Julie". Corneille was a true Christian. For years he served as churchwarden of the church of Saint-Sauveur in Rouen, and discharged his duties most religiously. Towards the end of his life he sold the house in which he was born to give a dowry to his daughter, who entered the Order of Saint Dominic. In all his dramas he constantly pursued a lofty ideal, showing men "as they should be", and representing characters whose heroism, sense of duty, and readiness to self-sacrifice contain lessons of highest morality. The standard text of Corneille's works is the edition of Marty-Laveaux (2 vols., Paris, 1862-68).

PICOT, La bibliographie cornélienne (Paris, 1876); TASCHEREAU, Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Pierre Corneille (Paris, 1855); SAINTE-BEUVE, Portraits littéraires (1829), I; NISARD, Histoire de la littérature française (1844), II; GUIZOT, Corneille et son temps (1852); GODEFROY, Lexique comparé de la langue de Corneille (Paris, 1862); FAGUET, Le dix-septième siècle (1880); BRUNETIÈRE in La grande encyc., s.v.; IDEM, Les époques du théâtre français; PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française (Paris, 1897), IV, 863-945.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Jacob Cornelisz

Also called Jacob van Amsterdam or van Oostzann, and at times confounded with a Walter van Assen, a Dutch painter of the first third of the sixteenth century. Nothing certain is known regarding the life of Cornelisz nor of his relations to other artists. He was one of the last painters of the Netherlands who showed no traces of Italian influence; however, his pupil, Jan van Scorel, is regarded as the first "Romanist". In composition Cornelisz was natural and expressed agreeable feeling in the manner of the old Flemish school; his colours are rich and warm; his backgrounds display an attractive landscape. But besides mistakes in drawing, an ugly realism often detracts from his work. Pictures are extant which it is certain he painted in the years 1506-30. A small yet attractive altar-piece in Berlin represents in the foreground the Madonna and Child with angels playing musical instruments, while the background shows a landscape; on the wings are depicted St. Augustine, St. Barbara, and the donor; the outer sides of the wings show St. Anne and St. Elizabeth. An altar-piece in the Belvedere at Vienna, representing St. Jerome, is full of force, variety, and religious feeling. St. Jerome is drawing a thorn out of the foot of a lion; the landscape in the background shows scenes from the life of the saint; on the outside of the doors is the Mass of St. Gregory. One of the most important works of Cornelisz is the "Triumph of Religion", or the "Adoration of the Trinity", at Cassel. At Antwerp there is an altar-piece of the Virgin with angels; another, representing the Crucifixion, is at Cologne. A "Nativity" at Naples and an "Adoration of the Magi" at Verona are carefully executed paintings. Both Berlin and the archiepiscopal museum at Antwerp possess canvases representing the Adoration of the Magi; a painting of the same subject is in private possession at The Hague. The figure of Christ and the drapery of Mary Magdalen are not pleasing in a picture at Cassel of the Risen Christ, painted by Cornelisz in his earliest period. Another canvas of a later date shows Saul and the Witch of Endor.

WAAGEN, Handbuch der deutschen und niederländischen Malerschulen (Stuttgart, 1862), I; SCHMIDT, Kunstchronik, XV; BODE, Repertorium, IV; SCHEIBLER, Gemälde des Jakob Cornelisz von Amsterdam in Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen (1882); FRANTZ, Geschichte der christlichen Malerei (Freiburg im Br., 1894), II.

G. GIETMANN

Cornelius

(Kornelios)

A centurion of the Italic cohort, whose conversion at Cæsarea with his household is related in Acts 10. The Roman name Cornelius would indicate that he was either a member of the distinguished gens Cornelia, or a descendant of one of its freedmen — most likely the latter. The cohort in which he was centurion was probably the Cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, which a recently discovered inscription proves to have been stationed in Syria before A.D. 69.

The description of Cornelius as "a religious man, and fearing God . . . ., giving much alms to the people" [i.e. the Jews (cf. 10:22)], shows that he was one of those gentiles commonly, though incorrectly, called proselytes of the gate, who worshipped the one true God and observed some of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, but who were not affiliated to the Jewish community by circumcision. He was certainly not a full proselyte (Acts 10:28, 34 sq., 45; 11:3).

The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws. The innovation was disapproved by the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem (Acts 11:2, 3); but when Peter had related his own and Cornelius's vision and how the Holy Ghost had come down upon the new converts, opposition ceased (Acts 11:4-18) except on the part of a few extremists. The matter was finally settled at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

According to one tradition Cornelius became Bishop of Cæsarea; according to another, Bishop of Scepsis in Mysia.

RAMSAY, Cornelius and the Italic Cohort in Expositor (1896), 194 sq.; Acta SS., Feb., I, 279 sq.; BARONIUS, Annales ad an. 41, n. 2; P. G., I, 1049; CXIV, 1287; P. L., XXIII, 265.

F. BECHTEL

Pope Cornelius

Martyr (251 to 253).

We may accept the statement of the Liberian catalogue that he reigned two years, three months, and ten days, for Lipsius, Lightfoot, and Harnack have shown that this list is a first-rate authority for this date. His predecessor, Fabian, was put to death by Decius, 20 January, 250. About the beginning of March, 251 the persecution slackened, owing to the absence of the emperor, against whom two rivals had arisen. It was possible to assemble sixteen bishops at Rome, and Cornelius was elected though against his will (Cyprian, Ep. lv, 24), "by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the vote of the people then present, by the consent of aged priests and of good men, at a time when no one had been made before him, when the place of Fabian, that is the place of Peter, and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant". "What fortitude in his acceptance of the episcopate, what strength of mind, what firmness of faith, that he took his seat intrepid in the sacerdotal chair, at a time when the tyrant in his hatred of bishops was making unspeakable threats, when he heard with far more patience that a rival prince was arising against him, than that a bishop of God was appointed at Rome" (ibid., 9). Is he not, asks St. Cyprian, to be numbered among the glorious confessors and martyrs who sat so long awaiting the sword or the cross or the stake and every other torture?

A few weeks later the Roman priest Novatian made himself antipope, and the whole Christian world was convulsed by the schism at Rome. But the adhesion of St. Cyprian secured to Cornelius the hundred bishops of Africa, and the influence of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, brought the East within a few months to a right decision. In Italy itself the pope got together a synod of sixty bishops. (See Novatian.) Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to have wavered. Three letters to him from Cornelius were known to Eusebius, who gives extracts from one of them (Hist. Eccl., VI, xliii), in which the pope details the faults in Novatian's election and conduct with considerable bitterness. We incidentally learn that in the Roman Church there were forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two ostiarii, and over one thousand five hundred widows and persons in distress. From this Burnet estimated the number of Christians in Rome at fifty thousand, so also Gibbon; but Benson and Harnack think this figure possibly too large. Pope Fabian had made seven regions; it appears that each had one deacon, one subdeacon and six acolytes. Of the letters of Cornelius to Cyprian two have come down to us, together with nine from Cyprian to the pope. Mgr. Merrati has shown that in the true text the letters of Cornelius are in the colloquial "vulgar-Latin" of the day, and not in the more classical style affected by the ex-orator Cyprian and the learned philosopher Novatian. Cornelius sanctioned the milder measures proposed by St. Cyprian and accepted by his Carthaginian council of 251 for the restoration to communion, after varying forms of penance, of those who had fallen during the Decian persecution (see Cyprian).

At the beginning of 252 a new persecution suddenly broke out. Cornelius was exiled to Centumcellæ (Civita Vecchia). There were no defections among the Roman Christians; all were confessors. The pope "led his brethren in confession", writes Cyprian (Ep. lx, ad Corn.), with a manifest reference to the confession of St. Peter. "With one heart and one voice the whole Roman Church confessed. Then was seen, dearest Brother, that faith which the blessed Apostle praised in you (Rom., i, 8); even then he foresaw in spirit your glorious fortitude and firm strength." In June Cornelius died a martyr, as St. Cyprian repeatedly calls him. The Liberian catalogue has ibi cum gloriâ dormicionem accepit, and this may mean that he died of the rigours of his banishment, though later accounts say that he was beheaded. St. Jerome says that Cornelius and Cyprian suffered on the same day in different years, and his careless statement has been generally followed. The feast of St. Cyprian was in fact kept at Rome at the tomb of Cornelius, for the fourth century "Depositio Martirum" has "XVIII kl octob Cypriani Africæ Romæ celebratur in Callisti". St. Cornelius was not buried in the chapel of the popes, but in an adjoining catacomb, perhaps that of a branch of the noble Cornelii. His inscription is in Latin: CORNELIUS* MARTYR* whereas those of Fabian and Lucius are in Greek (Northcote and Brownlow, "Roma sotteranea", I, vi). His feast is kept with that of St. Cyprian on 14 September, possibly the day of his translation from Centumcellæ to the catacombs.

The two Latin letters will be found in all editions of Cyprian. A better text is in Mercati, D'alcuni muori sussidi per la critica del texto di S. Cipriano (Rome, 1899). They will be found with the fragments in Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pontt. and in Routh, Reliquæ Sacræ. There is a spurious letter to St. Cyprian in the appendix to his works, another to Lupicinus of Vienne, and two more were forged by Pseudo-Isidore. All these will be found in the collections of councils and in Migne. The pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum is attributed to Cornelius by Nelke, Die Chronol. der Correspondenz Cyprians (Thorn, 1902); but it is by an unknown contemporary. On Cornelius see Tillemont, III; Acta SS. 14 Sept.; Benson, Cyprian (London, 1897). The Acta of St. Cornelius are valueless.

John Chapman

Peter Cornelius

Later when ennobled, da Cornelius

Born at Düsseldorf, 23 September, 1783; died at Berlin, 6 March, 1867. In 1811 he went to Rome, where he stayed until 1819. Returning home he became director of the Academy of Fine Arts at Düsseldorf; while at Düsseldorf he also executed works on a large scale for the Crown-Prince of Bavaria, later Louis I. In 1825 Cornelius was appointed director of the Academy at Munich, and for a long time Louis I of Bavaria was his liberal patron. After fifteen years, however, misunderstandings and the envy of detractors obliged Cornelius to accept the position offered him by Frederick IV of Prussia as director of the Academy of Fine Arts at Berlin, which office he retained until his death. Cornelius early developed poetic imagination, great energy, courage for large undertakings, and technical skill. He felt himself called to accomplish great tasks, and soon occupied himself with a large theme, the illustration of Goethe's "Faust". The publication of the first six sheets furnished Cornelius with the means for his first visit to Rome. Here he joined the Italian colony of German artists, the so-called "Nazarene painters", and was powerfully stimulated both by working with them and by their enthusiasm for a new school of German-Christian art. This intercourse, however, entailed no loss of his independence and native force. He drew the remaining six pictures for "Faust", illustrated the "Romeo and Juliet" of Shakespeare, whose works just at this period were becoming better known in Germany, and filled by the rising national spirit of his country made drawings for the old German epic, the "Niebelungenlied".

While at Rome his longing to express great conceptions in fresco-painting on a large scale had its first opportunity of fulfilment. The Prussian ambassador, Bartholdy, gave a commission to the German painters for the decoration of his house on Monte Pincio with frescoes from the Old-Testament story of Joseph; through Bartholdy's influence the same painters received an order from the Marchese Massimi to paint frescoes from the works of Ariosto, Tasso, and Dante in his villa near the Lateran. Some of these frescoes have a deservedly high reputation, as: "Joseph before Pharao", "Joseph and his Brethren", "Dante before Peter, James, and John", as well as other groups in the cartoons for scenes in Paradise. Three of the Dante cartoons were completed, but one of them has since vanished. The superiority of Cornelius to the entire circle of his artist-friends, Overbeck included, became so clear to men like Niebuhr and Prince Louis of Bavaria that the two positions above-mentioned, at Düsseldorf and Munich, were offered him. No longer hampered by material cares or artistic limitations, Cornelius had now full opportunity and a fine field for the carrying out of his ideals. A commanding place in the artistic world of his own country was a long time assured him, and the attainment of his hopes for the development of art on a heroic scale in Germany seemed near. The first ten years of his life in Düsseldorf and Munich as a professor and working artist formed a period of great renown and success.

As director Cornelius took up with vigour the reorganization of the art academies of Munich and Düsseldorf, but his influence in the latter city was not permanent. After he had made Munich his permanent residence and most of his friends had followed him there, the academy at Düsseldorf, under the direction of Schadow, pursued other aims, one of the main differences being that the scheme of developing painting in fresco on a heroic scale was abandoned. At the same time Cornelius did not find at Munich all the assistants he had wished; above all Overbeck had not followed him. Besides this the pupils did not meet the great problems of painting in fresco with skill equal to his; he was also not able to obtain in every case competent teachers for the theoretical instruction in the subsidiary sciences which at that time he held to be absolutely essential. Moreover, the favour of the king was too extreme to be permanent, nor could it fail to arouse envy. After 1820 Cornelius and his pupils decorated two halls and an entrance chamber of the Glyptothek at Munich, a building intended for the exhibition of ancient sculpture. The subjects were, for the two halls, the gods and heroes of classic antiquity and, for the entrance chamber, the history of primitive man, the compositions being based on Greek mythology. The selection gave the artist the opportunity of presenting beautiful forms, strong action, and lofty ideals; at the same time he could make use of symbolical allusions as they are conceived by Dante.

Cornelius has been called a poet and thinker; the loftiness and unity of conception displayed by these frescoes justify the assertion. The mastery of the difficult proportion of space shown is astonishing; the surfaces seem to have been planned for the frescoes and not the frescoes for the spaces. On the other hand, the inequality of execution especially in regard to colour is very striking. Cornelius allowed great liberty to his unequally gifted pupils; still much of the work, especially what he painted himself, is excellently carried out, as: "The Fall of Troy", "The Judges of the Lower World", "Eros with an Eagle", and "Eros with Cerberus". It must be acknowledged that Cornelius was not strong in colour, although his frescoes from the life of Joseph in the Villa Bartholdy are in all particulars satisfactory. King Louis I allowed him to make only the drawings for the loggias of the Pinakothek; the execution of the work was entrusted to Clemens Zimmermann. In these designs Cornelius gave in an unconstrained manner, yet one full of thought and imagination, the history of German and Italian painting. He hoped to have an opportunity in the new church, the "Ludwigskirche", to create a Christian epic which should be a Divine Comedy in colour, but to his bitter disappointment he was only commissioned to decorate the choir and transept. The subject chosen for delineation was the Christian conception of the Creation, Redemption, and the Last Judgment; the gigantic fresco of the Judgment, containing 2500 square feet, was painted by Cornelius himself (1836-39). Parts of the fresco show great merit in composition and drawing; a reverent composure and the avoidance of repellent nudity distinguish the painting from Michelangelo's "Judgment" on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel. The colour scheme, it must be acknowledged, is somewhat lacking in harmony, and the light in the church is unfavourable. King Louis saw the fresco under peculiarly unfortunate circumstances, and Cornelius fell into disgrace.

In 1841 he went to Berlin where the art-loving Frederick William IV became his unwavering patron. While at Berlin he drew for the royal mausoleum planned by the king the celebrated cartoons: "Christ Conquering Sin", intended for the east wall of a cloister designed in connexion with a new cathedral; "Christ Conquering Death", for the west wall of the cloister; "Christ in His Church", for the south wall, and "Christ at the End of the World", taken from the imagery of the Apocalypse, for the north wall. In harmony with the scheme of the cartoons is the painting for the apse of the intended cathedral, "Mankind Awaiting the Day of Judgment", completed by Cornelius in 1856. During his residence at Berlin Cornelius produced his most mature work as a draughtsman; his designs were at all times so complete that they were not certain to gain by execution in colour. The cartoons for the royal mausoleum, of which the one for the north wall was on the scale of the intended fresco, met fairly undisputed approval. His work as head of the German School at Rome and as leader in Germany of aspiring artists gives Cornelius the position of a pioneer of the nineteenth century in asserting high ideals and in developing technic on the heroic scale.

H. GRIMM, Neue Essais (Berlin, 1865); VON WOLZOGEN, Peter von Cornelius (Berlin, 1867); RIEGEL, Cornelius, der Meister der deutschen Malerei (Hanover, 1870); FÖRSTER, Peter von Cornelius, ein Gedenkbuch (Berlin, 1874); CARRIÈRE, in Neuer Plutarch (Leipzig, 1880); ECKERT, Peter Cornelius (Bielefeld, 1906), gives on p. 131 a complete bibliography.

G. GIETMANN

Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide

(Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen)

Flemish Jesuit and exegete, b. at Bocholt, in Flemish Limburg, 18 December, 1567; d. at Rome, 12 March, 1637. He studied humanities and philosophy at the Jesuit colleges of Maestricht and Cologne, theology first, for half a year, at the University of Douai, and afterwards for four years at Louvain; he entered the Society of Jesus, 11 June, 1592, and, after two years' noviciate and another year of theology, was ordained priest 24 December, 1595. After teaching philosophy for half a year, he was made professor of Holy Scripture at Louvain in 1596 and next year of Hebrew also. Twenty years later, in 1616, he was called to Rome in the same capacity, where, on the 3rd of November, he assumed the office which he filled with such renown for many years after. The latter years of his life, however, he seems to have devoted exclusively to finishing and correcting his celebrated commentaries. He was a sincerely pious and zealous priest and an exemplary religious. During his professorship at Louvain he liked to spend his holidays preaching and administering the sacraments, especially at the pilgrimage of Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu). With moving simplicity and truth he portrayed himself in an emotional prayer to the Prophets at the end of his commentary on Daniel: "For nearly thirty years I suffer with and for you with gladness the continual martyrdom of religious life, the martyrdom of illness, the martyrdom of study and writing; obtain for me also, I beseech you, to crown all, the fourth martyrdom, of blood. For you I have spent my vital and animal spirits; I will spend my blood too." With his brethren in religion at Rome he enjoyed so high a reputation for sanctity that, when he died, they gave him a separate burial place, in order to be the more certain of finding his bones when eventually, as they hoped, he should receive the honour of beatification.

Cornelius a Lapide wrote ample commentaries on all the books of the Catholic Canon of Scripture, with the exception only of Job and the Psalms. Even before leaving Flanders, he edited the "Commentaries in omnes divi Pauli epistolas" (1614) and, "in Pentateuchum" (1616), both at Antwerp. The commentaries on the Greater and Lesser Prophets, on the Acts of the Apostles, the Canonical Epistles and the Apocalypse, Ecclesiasticus and the Proverbs, followed later on. The rest were edited only after his death; but all of them have been several times re-edited, both separately and collectively. Of the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul he himself was permitted to see at least eleven editions. The complete series, with Job and the Psalms added by other hands, appeared at Antwerp, 1681, 1714; at Venice, 1717, 1740, 1798; at Cologne, 1732; at Turin, 1838; at Lyons, 1839-42, 1865 and 1866; at Malta, 1843-46; at Naples, 1854; at Lyons and Paris, 1855 and 1856; at Milan, 1857; at Paris, 1859-63. The best-mentioned edition has been enriched by Crampon and Péronne with annotations from more recent interpreters. All these commentaries are on a very large scale. They explain not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense of the sacred text, and furnish a large number of quotations from the Fathers and the later interpreters of Holy Writ during the Middle Ages. Like most of his predecessors and contemporaries, a Lapide intends to serve not only the historical and scientific study of the Bible, but, even more, the purposes of pious meditation, and especially of pulpit exposition. An extract from the commentary on the Acts appeared in 1737 at Tyrnau, under the title: "Effigies Sancti Pauli, sive idea vitæ apostolicæ". A large work in 4 vols., "Les trésors de Cornelius a Lapide: extraits de ses commentaires de l'écriture sainte à l'usage des prédicateurs, des communautés et des familles chrétiennes", by the Abbé Barbier, was published at Le Mans and Paris, 1856, re-edited at Paris, 1859, 1872, 1876, 1885, 1896; and an Italian translation of the same by F. M. Faber, appeared at Parma, 1869-70, in 10 vols., 16 mo.

These numerous editions show how highly these works are estimated by Catholics. But Protestant voices have joined in the appreciation. G. H. Goetzius (Leipzig, 1699) wrote an academical dissertation, "Exercitatio theologica de Cornelii a Lapide Commentariis in Sacram Scripturam", in which he praises the Jesuit author as the most important of Catholic Scriptural writers. An English translation of the complete commentaries was undertaken by the Rev. Thomas W. Moseman, an Anglican clergyman, under the title, "The great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide" (London, 1876–). A manuscript in the Vatican Library contains an Arabic translation of the Commentary on the Apocalypse, by Yusuf ibn Girgis (beginning of the eighteenth century). The same Maronite writer is said to have translated the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.

      Terwecoren, Cornelius a Lapide in Collection de précis historiques (Brussels, 1857), 610-14, 636-45; De Backer and Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Brussels and Paris, 1893), IV, 1511-26; IX (1900), 573.

John P. van Kasteren

Karl Josef Rudolph Cornely

German biblical scholar and Jesuit, b. 19 April, 1830, at Breyell in Germany; d. at Treves, 3 March, 1908. On the completion of his classical studies he matriculated at Münster in Westphalia to study philosophy and theology. In 1852 he joined the Society of Jesus. Recognizing his abilities, his superiors determined to give him the best possible training both practical and theoretical. Consequently, his novitiate finished, he took a two years' course of scholastic philosophy at Paderborn and Bonn and another year of sacred and profane oratory. Then he was sent to Feldkirch to teach Latin, Greek, and German, and to preside at the disputations of the students of philosophy from 1857 to 1859. After this practical experience he returned to Paderhorn to go through the necessary course of dogmatic and moral theology previous to his ordination in 1860. The next years he devoted to special study of the Scriptural sciences in Germany, at Ghazir near Beirut, in Egypt and in Paris, and by dint of hard labour acquired an extensive knowledge of Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, and Aramaic. After five years thus spent in special work he was recalled to Maria-Laach, the theologate of the Society, to review his varied acquirements in the light of dogmatic theology and to prepare his theses for the final examination and the degree of Doctor in the Society. After the customary third year spent in study and the practice of the exercises and the Institute of St. Ignatius, he was appointed professor of scripture and Oriental languages at Maria-Laach.

When the Jesuits founded the periodical "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", Father Cornely became at first a regular contributor and then its editor from 1872 to 1879. His style is remarkable for clearness and vigor and compares favorably with the great German classics. The ring in indignation and irony in his articles against the Old Catholics, on the Protestant Association, and on political hypocrisy finds its explanation in the unwarranted attacks and in the relentless persecution of the Church and of the order to which he belonged. The expulsion of the Jesuits from Germany in 1872 interrupted his career as a professor and rendered the task of the editor extremely difficult. With three or four of his brethren he took up his residence at Terveuren near Brussels, and although many of his collaborators and the rich library of Maria-Laach were scattered about in different places, he succeeded not only in maintaining the periodical on its former level but also strengthening and widening its influence on Catholic Germany. Most of the men who contributed from that time on to the "Stimmen" were won and trained by the magnetic personality of Cornely, who frequently inspired and always carefully revised the papers, thus securing uniformity of tone and tendency. An important stage in the development of the "Stimmen" was marked by the appearance of the first supplements (Ergänzungshefte), in 1876. This new departure was occasioned by the numerous philosophic writings of Father Tilman Pesch. They could not all be published in the "Stimmen" without altering the general character of the periodical and sacrificing the interest of some classes of readers. They might, of course, have been published separately in book form. But Cornely was of the opinion that a series of supplements to a widely read review would reach larger numbers and would in a manner offset the numerous non-Catholic publications of a similar character. The supplements embody the most varied scholarship: theology, philosophy, literature, and science.

To quicken the interest of his countrymen in the missionary work of the Church, Father Cornely founded in 1873 "Die katholischen Missionen". Intended for German readers this magazine was above all to describe the labours and successes of the German missionary and to give the history, the geography, and the ethnographic features of the German missions in foreign countries. In the beginning Cornely took the lion's share of work upon himself. Soon, however, the labour was thus divided: Cornely wrote the reports on Europe and Australia; Baumgartner reported on Asia; Kreiten on Africa; and von Hummelauer on America. In 1879 Cornely was appointed professor of exegesis at the Gregorian university in Rome. Here he planned and wrote the first volumes of the "Cursus Scripturæ Sacræ", a complete biblical encyclopedia, the largest publication of its kind in modern Catholic literature. To carry out a plan so vast required the combined efforts of many scholars. Cornely himself undertook to write the general and special introductions and the commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Even this task he could not complete, although he discontinued lecturing in 1889 to devote all his energies to the greatest work of his laborious life. Among his writings are:- Introductio generalis in U. T. libros sacros" (Paris, 1893);- Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros" (Paris, 1897);- Introductio specialis in didacticos et propheticos V. T. libros" (Paris, 1897);- Introductio specialis in singulos N. T. libros" (Paris, 1897);- Historicæ et criticæ Introductionis in U. T. libros Compendium" (Paris, 1900);- Synopses omnium librorum sacrorum" (Paris, 1899);- Psalmorum synopses" (Paris, 1899); - Analyses librorum sacrorum N. T." (Paris, 1888);- Commentarium in priorem ep. ad Corinthios" (Paris, 1890);- Commentarius in epistolas ad Cor. alterum et ad Galatas" (Paris, 1892);- Commentarius in ep. ad Romanos" (Paris, 1896);- Leben des sel. Petrus Faber" (Freiburg, 1900);- Leben des sel. Spinola" (Mainz, 1868).

Baumgartner, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXXXIV, IV, 357.

PETER SCHWEITZER